The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20242988.tiffUse by Special Review (USR) Application Planning Department Use Date Received Amount $ Case # Assigned Application Received By _ Planner Assigned Property Information Is the property currently in violation? 2I No / ■ Yes Violation Case Number Parcel Number 0 5 5 3- 1 5_ 1 - 0 0- 0 1 7 Site Address 15864 County Road 94, Weld County Legal Description PT NE4 15-8-66 COMM N4 SEC COR TH S89D57E 2641 35 S40O01W 3214 89 N17016W 2579 36 N89039E 192 17 TPOB Section 15 , Township 08 N, Range 66 W Zoning District Agriculture Acreage 81 6 S Within subdivision or townsite? ❑ No / ❑ Yes Name Water (well permit # or water district tap #) Sewer (On -site wastewater treatment system permit # or sewer account #) Floodplain 0 No / ■ Yes Geological Hazard 21 No / ❑ Yes Airport Overlay VI No I Cl Yes Project USR Use being applied for Name of proposed business Property Owner(s) (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Name Chad R Smith and Cane L Smith Company Phone # 307-215-4778 Email csmithwyo77@gmad com and cariesmith12118@gmail com Street Address 15864 COUNTY ROAD 94 City/State/Zip Code Pierce / CO / 80650 APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT (Authorization Form must be included if there is an Authorized Agent) Name Kyle Sundman and Kyle Hockstad Company Pivot Energy Phone # (888) 734 - 3033 Email ksundman@pivotenergy net and khockstad@pivotenergy net Street Address 1601 Wewatta St Suite #700 City/State/Zip Code Denver / CO / 80202 1 (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge All fee owners of the property must sign this application If an Authorized Agent signs, an Authorization Form signed by all fee owners must be included with the application If the fee owner is a corporation, evidence must be included indicating the signatory has the legal authority to sign for the corporation IA .71.41-suis Signature Kyle Sundman 03/04/24 Date 7C Weecestad S to atu re Kyle Hockstad Print Print 3/4/24 Date 01/24 9 Rik Lo (We, (Owner-- pleaseprint) Authorization Form Departments d Planning Budding, DPvelopmeni Review and Envirormerilal Health 1402 N7L `j Aveni P O Box (58 Greeley. CO 80632 permission to !Divot Energy. (Authonzed Agent/Applicant-please print) to apply for any Planning, Building, Accesso Grading orr rN n located at (address r p a reel nun her ) I I �� 0553151 OODi 7 PT 4:4 15LB 66 COMM N4 SEC £014 f H S .9D5 T E ?641 i SA000 roV .2,4 99 1. Legal Description: NI 7016W 2579 36 903°fE 192 17 TPoe of Section Subdivision ame: Property Owners Inforrnattory Address: 15864 County Road 94, Pierce., .0 80650 Phone: 3D7-215-4778 Township_ 08N. Range csmithwyo77 As t h o riz d AgentApplicant Contact Information Auras.: • 1601 Wewatta St Suite #700, Denver, 80202 Phone: <888) 734 a 3033 Lot Block 1aII,coal"1 and caflel"rlltf`11 21 1 @gmapl.CoEI I - d. ksurdman !pw of nergy net Correspondence to besent la Owner Authorized Agenhi �pplucant X Additional Info: by; Marl Email I (We) hereby certify, under penalty of perjury and after carefully reading the entire contents of this is document that the information stated above is true and correc r rep __ 9 my (our) knowledge, Owner Signature _Date SeT/ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 171) AIM My commission expires Pv,a Y5� �� 2,07-10 TIFFANY BONER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORA '0 NbTARY ID 20224032131 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 17 2026' Owner day of Notary PUbI C Date 20 01/24 11 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY (FOR A TRUST OR CORPORATE ENTITY) 1. This Statement of Authority relates to an entity named: Pivot Solar 65 LLC 2. The type of entity is a Limited Liability Company 3. The entity is formed under the law of Delaware . (Trust, corporation, etc.). (state). 4. The mailing address for the entity is: 1601 Wewatta St Suite #700, Denver CO 80202 5. The name and position of each person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the entity is: Kyle Sundman, Authorized Representative Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Authorized Representative Tom Hunt, Authorized Representative This Statement of Authority is executed on behalf of the entity pursuant to the provisions of Colorado Revised Statute Section 38-30-172(2). Executed this 24 day of July , 2024 STATE OF Colorado � ss. COUNTY OF Denver � The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 2-9 by ',,c: Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: Lt I-5 / ZCire Negakstiljamemillboilleandisillhaseseref KYLE HOCKSTAD 4 NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20234037487 4 MY COMASSION EXPIRES OCT 3, 2027 rela o Kyle Sundman, Authorized Representative Notareulat�c STATE OF DELAWARE CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The undersigned authorized person., desiring to form a limited liability company pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Act of the State of Delaware, hereby certifies as follows: , The name of the limited liability company is Pivot Solar 65 L. C he Registered Office of the limited liability company in the State of Delaware is located at 108 we _ 13th St Suite 100 (street), in the City of Wilmington , Zip Code 19801 . The name of the Registered Agent at such address upon whom process against this limited liability company may be served is \rem A.aet Services Inc. . By : f y. AuthorF�"• .. erson O uLPath-lion Name - Print or Type State of Delaware Secretary of State Division of Corporations Delivered 02:29 PM 09/18/2023 FILED 02:29 PM 09/18i2023 SR 20233516537 - File Number 2373064 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Total Pages: 8 Rec Fee: $48.99 Carly Koppes - Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , Co EXHIBIT C FORM OF MEMORANDUM OF LEASE RECORDING REQUESTED E TE AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Pivot Energy Inc. Attention: Title Department 1.601 Wewatta St., Suite 700 Denver Co 80202 (Space above this line for Recorder's use only) MEMORANDUM OF LEASE THIS .MEMORANDUM OF LEASE is made and entered into as of c L 2023, by and between Chad R. Smith & Carie L. Smith whose residence/mailing address is 15864 County Road 94, Pierce, CO0650 (4'Owner") and Pivot Energy Development LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, whose address is 1601. Wewatta St., Suite 700, Denver CO 80202 ("Company") (Owner and Company the "Parties" and each a P r ), andprovides as follows: This Memorandum of Lease provides notice of the Solar Lease Agreement dated dta Zro , 2023, (the "Lease) in which. Company will construct, operate and maintain a solar facility (the "Project"). LE O.R/O E ..: LESSEE/COMPANY: DESCRIPTION of PROPERTY: LEASE COMMENCEMENT DATE: Chad R. Smith & Care L. Smith Pivot Energy Development LLC Company is leasing a portion of the Owner's Land, as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A ("Leased Area") as well as in and to any easements, rights -of -way, and other rights and benefits relating or appurtenant to the Land (collectively "Proper ). The Lease also restricts certain uses of and grants certain interests in and to the Property. For Owner'stitle to the Land, reference is herein made to a deed dated June 25, 2019, and recorded at the Weld County Registry of Deeds at Reception Number: 4501310. as of A � . (the "Effective Date"). a � 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Paget of8 TERM. OF LEASE: The Term of the Lease consists of a Development Tenn and Operations Tern. The Development Term is five (5) years from the Effective Date. The Operations Term starts on the earlier of: (a) Company's notice to Owner of the start of the Operations Term; (b) the date that is twelve (12) months after the date of the start of construction of the Project as set forthin a notice from Company to Owner; or, (c) the commercial operations date of the Project and continuing thereafter until the date that is twenty-one (21) years after this date subject to extensions as detailed below. RIGHTS OF EXTENSION: o span has the option to extend the Operation Term of the Lease for two (2) additional and successive ten-year terms, as provided in the Lease. NO FIXTURE: E: EASEMENTS: The Project, as defined in the Lease, installed and operated by Company at the Property shall not be deemed a. fixture. The Project is Company's personal property and Owner has no right, title or interest in the Project. Further, Owner has waived all right of levy for rent, all claims and demands against the Project and all rights it may have to place a lien on the Project. Company has acquired the following .Easements. The term of the Easements is co -extensive with the termof the Lease. The Easements are more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto. i A non-exclusive right of pedestrian, vehicular and equipment access to the Project across the Land or through Owner's remaining property at ail times, which is necessary or convenient for ingress and egress to the Project; (ii) an exclusive right on Owner's Land and. Owner's adjacent property to construct, operate maintain, reconstruct, relocate, remove, and/or repair the electric utility service infrastructure andassociated wires, lines and poles and other infrastructure necessary and convenient to interconnect the Project to the Utility electrical distribution system, the location of which the Utility will determine before th.e Commercial Operations Date; iii a negative solar easement, upon which Owner shall not construct buildings or structures, or plant new trees or vegetation of any type, or allow any trees or other vegetation on the Property which now or hereafter, in Company's reasonable opinion, may be a hazard to the Project, overshadow or otherwise block or interlre withsunlight access to the Project and/or interfere with Company's exercise of its rights hereunder (the "Solar Easement"). Company any. may omp 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Page 3 of 8 (but shall not be obligated to) remove, at Owner's cost, any vegetation, buildings or other structures which violate this easement. Notwithstanding anything herein . to the contrary, Owner shall �`J reimburse Company for removal costs as anabate em of Rent. The Solar Easement is measured at angles of three hundred sixty (360) degrees horizontally and three hundred sixty (360) degrees vertically fromthe boundaries of the Land; and (iv) a non-exclusive easement to be located at a mutually acceptable location on the Land for temporary (A) storage and staging of tools, materials and equipment, (B) construction laydown„ (C) parking of construction crew vehicles and temporary construction trailers, and (D) placement and use of other facilities reasonably necessary to construct, erect, install, expand, modify or remove the Project. All Easements shall burden. the Property and shall run with the land for th.e benefit of Company, its successors and. assigns (including any permitted assignees of Company's rights under the Lease), andtheir respective agents, contractors, subcontractors and. licensees. The Parties have executed and. recorded this .Memorandum of Lease for the purpose of ` giving record notice of the Lease, of the exclusive easements, leases, and rights it grants, and of certain restrictions it imposes. The Agreement runs with the Property and includes a quiet enjoyment clause. All of the conditions, covenants, and terms regarding the :Lease are more particularly set forth in the Lease, which is incorporated by this reference. In the event of any conflict between the conditions and terms set forth in this Memorandum of Lease and the conditions and terms set forth. in the Lease, the conditions and terns of the Lease will control and govern. SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Page 4of8 OWNER SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEMORANDUM OF LEASE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this MEMORANDUM OF LEASE as of the date set fob above. OWNER Chad R. Smith By: STATE OF )ss. COUNTY OF giVs, On \03V 2023, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said. County and State, personally appeared �l be, �,csi-' N,NY1, personally known to me for proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity uponbehalf of which the person(s) acted, executed 1;h(', within instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. �Yw`iitJfAbla.rtN Notary Public Commission Expires: G ANNA MICHELE; ,,.�ItEOE AN NOTARY P Uk..UC STATE OF COLORADO A NOTARY ID 20224036314 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Page 5 of 8 OWNER SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEMORANDUM OAND OF LEASE IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this MEMORANDUM OF LEASE as of the date set forth above. OWNER Carle L. Smith By: STATE OF COUNTY OF \\I 4u6 )ss. BAe\c\r\ On \ 2023, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Pu blic in and for said County a��d. ttpersonally appeared m ` personally known to me (or proved to me on. the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(Ies)., and thatby his/.her/their signature(s) on the instrument ent theperson(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the within instrument. WITNESS hand and official seal. Notary Public Commission Expires: ANNA MICHEL WIEDEMAN NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY 10 20224036314 MY COMMISSION. EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 15., 2026 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Page 6of8 COMPANY SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEMORANDUM. RANDUM .E LEASE IN WITNESS ' HEREOF, the Parties have executed this MEMORANDUM OF LEASE as of the date set forth above. COMPANY Pivot Energy Dcelopnlent LLC By: Name: j amet Title: Authorized Representative ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF COLORADO )ss. COUNTY OF DENVER. On , 2023, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Moen H 114 , personally known to m.e (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), (ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the within instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Pu tic Commission Expires: Diego Lopez -Duran NOTARY PUBLIC STATE. OF COL0PADO NOTARY 1O 20214042224MY�7' COMMISSION XPIRES , �, 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT A TO MEMORANDUM OF LEASE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND OWNER'S LAND: THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS: Parcel 055315100017 Total Parcel Acreage 81.63 For Owner's title to the Land, reference is herein made to a deed dated June 25, 2019. and recorded at the Weld County Registry of Deeds at Reception Number: 4501310. LEASED AREA: Total Acreage of Lease Area is seventy (70) Acres. Accouni Parcel Space Acesinn 'Dog CiegSVM trot Tarr teat sweeps 1 YT NE" ai i..4��: _ OMti4 tc C:414 TM w!St T ^6^? Tae af�.'i 0IV "?a 'err •'�i L t t ti •.J a"<�f"1 w�•� � i , � �"� u %i a !.!�.,�� . �i sr kie5^..�":r1 1-�� R ��r; Subdh' star Property Addtsns 1Mt.4 to rut4 Sy 4;54 zia &leek Los Land Esarsoanrc Are is« r FP -SAL *CAazl Vatuai :34.2)1;. Assiestini What Papert' City Zip Staal?rk 7srd/h'ship pang* "Att. t'? 4912383 07/31/2023 04:27 PM Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT B TO MEMORANDUM OF LEASE DESCRIPTION OF THE EASEMENTS EASEMENTS: [Insert Legal Description] Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Planning Questionnaire 1. Explain the proposed use and business name. • Pivot Energy is proposing to construct an approximately 8 MWac solar energy facility on approximately 50 acres within Weld County's jurisdiction. The solar energy facility will be built in two phases, with the first being around 5 MWac and the second being around 3 MWac, on land currently leased from Chad and Carie Smith, parcel 055315100017. The arrays, known as Pivot Solar 65 LLC and Chad Smith Phase 2, have, or will have, active capacity allocated from Xcel Energy, and are presently in the interconnection study process (Pivot Solar 65 LLC) or are soon to be submitted to Xcel Energy's active capacity program (Chad Smith Phase 2). • The projects will be built on approximately 50 contiguous acres. • The projects will deliver electricity to a local energy consumer via Xcel Energy's "Solar*Rewards Offsite" program. This program is similar to Xcel's "Solar Rewards Community" program but allows for larger power consumers to subscribe to a larger amount of solar. Xcel has awarded this parcel with solar energy generation, which must live with the parcel and cannot be relocated or reallocated. • The panels are expected to be less than twelve feet above grade at their highest point and Pivot commits to following the Weld County Code panel height restrictions. The panels will be surrounded by a decorative wildlife game fence, similar to what the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") and Colorado Parks and Wildlife ("CPW") use. The panels' exact height is subject to final structural engineering. • Dual use "agrivoltaics" — projects that incorporate agricultural uses with solar energy production — are a priority for Pivot's portfolio of sites undergoing permitting in 2024. Depending on site characteristics, tenant farmer availability, and project financials, Pivot will evaluate whether the secondary agricultural use will take the form of sheep grazing or crop production underneath the panels. The land is currently used for dryland farming, as the parcel does not have water access or rights. As such, any agrivoltaics could include (though not be limited to) dryland farming, grazing, or beekeeping. • The project lease areas will include panels and inverters mounted on steel posts/beams, concrete - pad -mounted transformers and other electrical equipment, an access drive with hammerhead emergency turn -around, and perimeter fencing with gates. • The solar arrays will be designed to meet the maximum wind and snow loads applicable in Weld County. In addition, the panels themselves have a manufacturer warranty of at least 25 years. • Generally, a contracted Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") crew of one to four people will visit the sites four to eight times annually for routine inspections, maintenance, and vegetation control and on an as -needed basis to address equipment outages. There will be no permanent staff on the site, which will be remotely monitored. • Upon the conclusion of the projects' useful lives, the project owners will remove all project materials and return the property to the landowner in the originally leased condition, minus any vegetation and grading. Please reference the attached Decommissioning Plan for more information. 2. Explain the need for the proposed use. • The Weld County Comprehensive Plan states that one of the County's top priorities is preserving landowner rights and creating an environment conducive to local economic growth, all while maintaining the overall well-being of the local population. Specifically, the code plan states "...the goal of the Comprehensive Plan [is] to promote opportunities for County Citizens, while protecting private pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Planning Questionnaire property rights." • Pivot's ground lease presents an advantageous opportunity for the County to generate additional revenue. Revenues from this project would far exceed any revenues that would be collected from agricultural leases on the same acreage. The parcel is presently largely vacant, and no agricultural production has taken place for years. • This project will also provide reduced -cost energy to customers of Xcel Energy located in Weld County and across the state. 3. Describe the current and previous use of the land. • The land is currently zoned agricultural. In the past, the land has been used for agricultural production. 4. Describe the proximity of the proposed use to residence: • On February 15th, 2024, all abutters to the property were sent a USPS priority mail envelope containing a letter notifying them of the project, addressing frequently asked questions, and providing contact information at Pivot. • In addition, a community meeting was held on February 26th, 2024, at the Roma Pizza in Greeley. Invitations were sent to neighbors within 0.5 -miles of the proposed project. One (1) neighbor attended the meeting. • Excluding the Smiths there are potentially, depending on final site designs, two (2) residences within 500 feet of the proposed project. These residences are: 45879 County Road 33, and 45875 County Road 33. • Per County ordinance 23-4-1030-C-3, Pivot shall either design the site to increase the distance to 500 feet from these residences to the project, or Pivot will reduce the setback via screening and/or signed waiver of informed consent by the residence owners. 5. Describe the surrounding land uses of the site and how the proposed use is compatible with them. • The surrounding land uses are a mix of agricultural, oil and gas, and rural residential units. • As a low -impact use, solar energy naturally co -exists well with agricultural and oil and gas operations. It produces no sound, light, or traffic, and is an unmanned operation with the exception of 4-8 annual visits by a small maintenance crew (1-2 pickup trucks) and, if applicable, intermittent visits from a local shepherd (1 pickup truck). Pivot's solar facilities use pollinator -friendly, low growth seed mixes, and blend into the natural landscape. 6. Describe the hours and days of operation (i.e. Monday thru Friday 8 AM to 5 PM) • During construction, crews will be on -site from approximately 7:00 am - 6:00 pm Monday -Friday. Most vehicles will arrive early in the morning (7:00 to 9:00 am) and will begin departing the construction site around 3:00 pm. • Once constructed, the site will be unmanned but the solar farm will generate electricity during daylight hours each day of the year. • Operations and maintenance crews will be on -site up to eight times annually for up to four hours per visit. pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Planning Questionnaire 7. Describe the number of employees including full-time, part-time and contractors. If shift work is proposed, detail number of employees, schedule, and duration of shifts. • During the construction phase, there will be a crew made up of approximately 40 people on site each day. The construction crew will consist of project managers, laborers, electricians, civil contractors, and any other necessary personnel for the projects. Once construction is complete, there will rarely be personnel on site, generally limited to shepherd and O&M crew during their scheduled trips. 8. Describe the maximum number of users, patrons, members, buyers, or other visitors that the site will accommodate at any one time • The site will not be open to the public. • The gate around the site will be locked and will only be accessible to those constructing the facility or periodically maintaining the facility. The site will also be accessible to life -safety emergency personnel. gist the types and maximum numbers of animals to be on the site at any one time. • During commercial operation of the solar facility, Pivot anticipates using seasonal sheep grazing to manage vegetation onsite. During the summer months, approximately 40 sheep will be onsite, at the discretion of the local grazing partner. 10. List to id types, and number of operating and processing equipment. • Not applicable. 11. List the types, number and uses of the existing and proposed structures. • There will not be any structures built onsite. 12. Describe the size of any stockpile, storage, or waste areas. • There will not be any stockpile, storage, or waste areas onsite. 13. Describe the method and time schedule of removal or disposal of debris, junk and other wastes associated with the proposed use. • Any debris, junk, or wastes associated with building the projects will be removed and disposed of property prior to completion. No waste will be produced once the array is "turned -on" and producing energy. 14. Include a timetable showing the periods of time required for the construction of the operation. pivotenergy.net 4"SPivot Pivot Energy Inc. — Planning Questionnaire s,,fr Energy • Please reference the Vehicle Trip Generation Table Below. PS65 Chad Smith Phases 1 and 2 - Estimated Construction Traffic Project Phase (Time Period) Vehicle Type Estimate Gross Vehicle Weight Number of Vehicles Per Day Maximum and Average Vehicle Trips Per Day Site Preparation (Approx 1- 3 weeks) Equipment Hauling Trucks 15 to 33 Tons 0-3 0-6 Passenger Vehices 1 to 5 Tons 3-8 n 6-16 Fuel Delivery 10 to 15 Tons 1 2 Max-241Avg-17 Material and Equipment Delivery (Approx. 4- 5 weeks) Conex Container and Delivery Trucks 15 to 25 Tons 16-48 32-96 Equipment Hauling Trucks 10 to 20 Tons 0-12 0-24 Max-120/Avg-76 Solar Facility Installation (6-7 Months) Passenger Vehicles 1 to 5 Tons 32-48 64-96 Fuel Truck 10 to 15 Tons 1 2 Material Delivery Truck 10 to 15 Tons 1 2 Max-100/Avg-80 _ Operations (Post Construction) Utility Vehicle 1 to 5 Tons 1 Per Month Max-2/Avg-0 15. Describe the proposed and existing lot surface type and the square footage of each type (i.e. asphalt, gravel, landscaping, dirt, grass, buildings). DISTURBANCE AREA SUMMARY Disturbance Surface Disturbance Area (ft2) Disturbance Area (cc) Gravel Access Drive 27,607 0.63 Electric Equipment Pad 636 0.01 Electric Structures 824 0.02 Total 29,066 0.67 The remaining project areas will be seeded with a native pollinator friendly grass mix or potentially utilize dual -use crop production underneath the panels, which will decrease the runoff as it is less impervious than row crop. knw many parking spacpc are proposed? How many handicap -a recc hIe parking spaces are proposed? • No parking spaces are proposed on -site. This site is not open for public access. 17. Describe the existing and proposed fencing and screening for the site including all parking and outdoor storage areas • Pivot is proposing to use a decorative wildlife fence to enclose the areas as well as low growth decorative native grasses in between array rows and around the sides of the array. • The proposed fence is Colorado Parks and Wildlife's preferred decorative game fence, about 8' tall with a smooth top wire. • There will be no on -site outdoor storage areas. 18. Describe the existing and proposed landscaping for the site. pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Planning Questionnaire • Pivot will be seeding under the panels with a native pollinator friendly grass mix or potentially utilizing dual -use crop production underneath the panels. • Pivot is proposing to use a decorative game fence to enclose the areas. • No additional landscaping is proposed, unless utilized to bring the site into compliance with the Weld County setback requirement. 19. Describe reclamation and procedures to be employed as stages of the operation are phased out or upon cessation of the Use by Special Review activity. • Once the projects have reached the end of their useful lives and the lease has been terminated, Pivot or the facility owner will remove all improvements made and either recycle, reuse, or repurpose all materials. The site will be re -seeded with a native dryland seed and the property will be returned to the landowner ready to be developed as he or she wishes. • Please reference the attached Decommissioning Plan for more details. 20. Describe the proposed fire protection measures. • Pivot will maintain vegetation under the panels. • Internal roads and setbacks between fence and array have been designed to provide access by emergency vehicles if need be. 21. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan per Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code • In Section 22-2-10 C, the County Code states that one of its guiding principles is to Promote Economic Growth and Sustainability. The proposed project is a PV solar facility that generates electricity without generating any emissions. This project will last for 20-40 years, bringing the County economic revenue and support. This project will further Weld County's stated goal of encouraging the development of alternative energy sources as a hedge against the volatility of traditional energy sources. • In Section 22-2-60 A, the County Code states the importance of Wildlife in the County. The proposed project will be surrounded by a wildlife friendly game fence to ensure no animals are trapped within the project areas. Studies of the project areas did not reveal any nexus with any protected, threatened, or endangered species or their habitats. In addition, Pivot will work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to ensure the project meets any necessary requirements. • In Section 22-2-60 B, the County Code states it aim to support responsible energy and mineral development. Solar is both an alternative and sustainable energy source that does not emit any odors and has limited vehicle traffic once construction is complete. In addition, the agricultural land that the solar facility is on will be preserved throughout the lifespan of the solar array and can be used for agricultural purposes following the life cycle of the system. This development will not generate any perceivable noise and therefore complies with this development requirement. 22. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is located. (Intent statements can be found at the beginning of each zone district section in Article III of Chapter 23 of the WWi'nAH County Code.) • Section 23-3-10 of the County code states: The A (Agricultural) Zone District is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agricultural activities and activities related to agriculture and agricultural production, and for areas for natural resource extraction and energy development, without the pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Planning Questionnaire interference of other, incompatible land uses. • The solar facility will not have any negative effects on the agricultural land beneath it. Pivot will seed the ground beneath the solar array with a native seed mixture that will help preserve the agricultural land. 23. Explain how this proposal will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area or adopted master plans of affected municipalities. • The solar array will use native seed mixture that will help maintain high -quality soils for any future agricultural production following the life cycle of the array. • Please see the supplemental Decommissioning Plan document for additional information. 24. Explain how this proposal impacts the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County • The proposed solar array will meet the health, safety, and welfare goals of the County because the array will not produce any odors or fumes. The solar array will help produce clean, long-term energy for the County, therefore meeting the goals of maintaining a healthy society. 25. Describe any irrigation features. If the proposed use is to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, explain your efforts to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. • No irrigation features are being proposed in the scope of these projects. The project is to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, but according to the USDA Soil Report, there is no prime agricultural land in the project area. The project will rest and conserve this agricultural land for future use after decommissioning. 26. Explain how this proposal complies with Article V and Article XI of Chapter 23 if the proposal is located within any Overlay Zoning District (Airport, Geologic Hazard, or Historic Townsites Overlay Districts) or a Special Flood Hazard Area identified by mans officially adopted by the County. • The project is not located in an Overlay Zoning District. 27. Detail known State or Federal permits required for your proposed use(s) and the status of each permit. Provide a copy of and/ anolication or permit • There are no State or Federal permits associated with the project besides state electrical permit and state SWPP, which will be completed prior to submission of building permit. pivotenergy.net Pivot Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Development Review Questionnaire 1. Describe the access location and applicable use types (i.e., agricultural, residential, commercial/industrial, and/or oil and gas) of all existing and proposed accesses to the parcel. Include the approximate distance each access is (or will be if proposed) from an intersecting county road. State that no existing access is present or that no new access is proposed, if applicable • The access to Pivot Solar 65 LLC and Chad Smith Phase 2, c/o Pivot Energy Inc. ("Pivot") will come from CR 94 on the northern side of the parcel. The entrance to the site will be roughly across from 15685 County Road 94. Access to the parcel will not come from any other areas. 2. Describe any anticipated change(s) to an existing access, if applicable: • Proposed change will be to add a new access route to and from the site (between public ROW and lease area) with gravel aggregate to accommodate emergency services. 3. Describe in detail any existing or proposed access gate including itc location: • An access gate will be located at the entrance of the fenced area. This access gate will be locked and not accessible by the public. This gate will be accessible to emergency vehicles and operators. 4. Describe the location of all existing accesses on adjacent parcels and on parcels located on the opposite side of the road. Include the approximate distance each access is from an intersecting County Road. • The proposed access will be located off CR 94. This is located around 1,300 ft east of the intersection of CR 94 and Highway 85. 5. Describe any difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from an existing access and any anticipated difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from a proposed accecc • There are no anticipated visual difficulties for oncoming traffic from our proposed access point. A glare study using, ForgeSolar, has determined that there are no significant glare concerns with the proposed project in the desired location. 6. Describe any horizontal curve (using terms like mild curve, shar curve, reverse curve, etc.) in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access. • Please reference traffic impact study included herein. 7. Describe the topography (using terms like fiat, slight hills, steep hills, etc.) of the road in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access. • The entire site and the point of access is overall generally flat. The topography of the full site slopes to the south/southeast (around 25 ft in elevation across 2,500 feet) and the point of access topography varies by a few feet on average overall. pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Environmental Health Questionnaire 1. Discuss the existing and proposed potable water source. If utilizing a drinking water well, include either the well permit or well permit application that was submitted to the State Division of Water Resources. If utilizing a public water tap, include a letter from the Water District, a tap or meter number, or a copy of the water b" • Not applicable; however, bottled water will be provided during construction, as necessary. 2. Discuss the existing and proposed sewage disposal system. What type of sewage disposal system is on the property? If utilizing an existing on -site wastewater treatment system, provide the on -site wastewater treatment permit number. (If there is no on -site wastewater treatment permit due to the age of the existing on -site wastewater treatment system, apply for a on -site wastewater treatment permit through the Department of Public Health and Environment prior to submitting this application.) If a new on -site wastewater treatment system will be installed, please state "a new on -site wastewater treatment system is proposed." (Only propose portable toilets if the use is consistent with the Department of Public Health and Environment's portable toilet policy.) • No septic or sewage disposal is proposed to be on site. Portable toilets will be provided during construction, as necessary. 3. If storage Of warehouser ig is proposed, what type of items will be stored? • No storage or warehousing is proposed to be on site. 4. Describe where and how storage and/or stockpile of wastes, chemicals, and/or petroleum will occur on the site • No storage and/or stockpile of wastes, chemicals, or petroleum will take place onsite. 5. If there will be fuel storage on site, indicate the galloe is and the secondary containment. State the number of tanks and gallons per tank. • There will not be any fuel storage on site. 6. If there wily be washing of venicles or equipment on site, indicate how the wash water will be contained. • No vehicle washing will take place. 7. If there will be floor drains, indicate how the fluids will be contained.. • No floor drains will be built. The site will contain its runoff. The panels do not increase the impervious surface of the site. 8. Indicate if mere will be any air emissions • The solar array will not release any air emissions. 9. Provide a design and operations plan if applicable. • N/A 10. Provide a nuisance management plan if applicable. • N/A 11. Additional information may be requested depending on type of land use requested. • Noted. pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Additional Miscellaneous Questions The following questions provide additional context about our proposed project. These questions were noted in our completeness review for a separate project. 1. What is the `Reservation Letter'? • This is a proxy for the interconnection letter (which is still in process). We are using this to demonstrate that Xcel Energy has awarded the project to Pivot. We are providing a Level II Study from Xcel as the "Reservation Letter". 2. Provide a Utility Company Interconnection Agreement • This is in process. Level II Study attached in lieu. 3. How Many Solar Panels Will There Be on the Site? • m'19,000 4. What Equipment Will Be on the Site During Construction? Construction Trailers? Cargo Containers? • Job trailer (unlikely but dependent on contactor preference) • Telehandler (1) • Skidsteer (1-2) • Mini excavator (1) • Pile Drivers (1-2) 5. What is the Lighting Plan? Will There Be Lightning on the Site During Construction? • There will be no onsite lighting. 6. Address How the Cables Will Be Underground, Per Section 23-4-1030.C5. • DC circuits will be mostly in above ground CAB which typically is 42" above grade (minimum). Our low voltage AC circuits will all be buried but, as of now, our plan is to have our medium voltage (12.47kV) interconnection equipment on overhead poles. pivotenergy.net in Pivot Energy Pivot Energy Inc. - Alternatives Statement Pivot has researched alternatives to the proposed location, and it has been adequately assessed that the proposed site is the best location for the solar facility. Many other sites in Weld County have been assessed, as well as other locations throughout the state of Colorado. The Chad and Carle Smith site was chosen due to some of the following important factors: - The site's proximity to Xcel Energy distribution infrastructure - Flat topography - No geotechnical constraints noted on the site (as of now). A geotechnical study and report are currently in progress - Landowner interest and participation to host a solar facility on their land. - Xcel has awarded this parcel with solar energy generation, which must live with the parcel and cannot be relocated or reallocated pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Construction Impacts 1. Haul route map showing a minimum of one (1) mile traveled road and must include a connection to a paved, publicly-mninthineri ronrl. • Please see site plan in packet. 2. Agreement to mitigate construction traffic impacts to the area surrounding the proposed SEF. • Applicant agrees to mitigate construction impacts. 3. Describe what impacts construction of the project will have upon transportation patterns in the area intended to be served or affected by the proposal. • During construction, crews will be on -site from approximately 7:00 am - 6:00 pm Monday -Friday. Most vehicles will arrive early in the morning (7:00 to 9:00 am) and will begin departing the construction site around 3:00 pm. • Once constructed, the site will be unmanned but the solar farm will generate electricity during daylight hours each day of the year. • Operations and maintenance crews will be on -site up to eight times annually for up to four hours per visit. • Please reference the Vehicle Trip Generation Table Below. PS65 Ch Uzi Smith Phases land 2 - Estimated Construction Traffic Project Phase Period) (Time Vehicle TypeVehicle Estimate Gross Weight Number Vehicles of Per Day Maximum Vehicle Trips and r Marra ;::. Per lThv Site (Approx Preparation 1.3 weeks) Equipment Trucks HaulinE 13 to 33 Tons 0-3 i:; -. Passenger Veihices i to 5 Tons 3-4 6-16 Fuel Delivery 10 to 15 Tons 1 �) Max-241/loyg- 47 Equipment (Approx. Material and Delivery 4 - 5 weeks) Conex and Delivery Container Trucks 15 to 25 Tons 16-48 32-96 Equipment Trucks Hauling 10 to 20 Tons 0-12 0-24 Max-120/Avg-76 Sotar Installation Months) Facility (6-7 Passenger vehicles 1 to S Tons 32-48 64-96 Fuel Truck 10 to 15 Tons 1 2 Material. Thick Delivery 10 to 15 Tons 1 2 Max-100/Avg-80 Operations Construction) (Post Utility Vehicle 1 to 5 Tons 1 Per Month t ax-21Av -Q pivotenergy.net Pivot sj energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Construction Impacts 4. Describe the potential construction impact on roads within the County. • Please reference Vehicle Trip Generation Table above. • Some additional traffic should be expected for the time during construction due to the arrival of equipment and modules. 5. Identify improvements required to any roads within the County in order to serve the project adequately. • Proposed change will be to improve the existing access route to and from the site (between public ROW and lease area) with gravel aggregate to accommodate emergency services. pivotenergy.net ire 4 Pivot itmr Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Decommissioning Plan Weld County requires that Pivot Solar 65 LLC and Chad Smith Phase 2, c/o Pivot Energy Inc. ("Pivot") submit a Decommissioning plan to the Department of Planning Services as part of the final administrative review and approval process for a Solar Generation facility. The decommissioning costs will total approximately $180,000. The useful life of the solar facility is expected to be at least 20 -years. At the end of the project's useful life, Pivot will suspend operations and decommission the plant, which will include any necessary demolition, removal of above and below ground equipment, and site reclamation efforts. Pivot's obligation under the Solar Lease Agreement is to return the site to the landowner in substantially the same condition that the property was in prior to the improvements being made. This document establishes a detailed plan for decommissioning and reclamation activities once the project reaches the end of its useful life. The proposed activities will likely need to be refined throughout the project's life to reflect future best practices of the solar industry. Pivot has assumed the planning process will be initiated one to two years prior to the anticipated end of commercial operation. The final plans will be developed in consultation with Weld County and any other applicable agencies that have jurisdiction of activities in the decommissioning process. 1. Decommissioning Project Elements and Milestones The key tasks of project decommissioning are divided into related activities that represent milestones in the process. Each activity is described in further detail below. The decommissioning schedule reflects the conceptual timing of the milestones and overall process. The individual project components to be decommissioned will either be 1) recycled or reused to the maximum extent practicable, or 2) removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal facility. The general decommissioning approach will be the same whether a portion of, or the entire Project is decommissioned. The activities involved in the facility closure will depend on the expected future use of the site. Certain facility equipment and features may be left in place at the property owner's request, such as transmission facilities, roads, and drainage features. At the time of decommissioning, a plan will be submitted to the County proposing the equipment that will be removed and, if applicable, equipment that will remain, based on expected future use of the site. Pre -closure activities include final closure and reclamation planning, which identifies measures to be taken to restore the site to near pre -construction conditions. This includes but is not limited to the following: • Complete an analysis of the project materials and their composition to identify those specific components that may be recycled, re -used, scrapped, or sent to disposal sites; as well as identifying specific recycling facilities and disposal sites for materials. • Coordinate with local officials to obtain permits and develop plans for the transportation of materials and equipment to and from the site. • Develop specifications for demolition and reclamation, which will serve as the basis for contractor bids for decommissioning the project and establish the scope of demolition and reclamation, including developing reclamation plans in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. pivotenergy.net ire 4 Pivot itmr Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Decommissioning Plan During the planning process Pivot will brief the County and other applicable agencies on the decommissioning process and plans. All necessary permits and approvals required for the decommissioning will be obtained prior to commencing operations. The first step in the decommissioning process will be assessing existing site conditions and preparing the site for demolition. Site decommissioning and equipment removal is expected to take up to one year. Therefore, access roads, fencing, some electrical power, and other facilities will temporarily remain in place for use by the decommissioning workers until no longer needed. Demolition debris will be placed in temporary onsite storage areas pending final transportation and disposal and/or recycling according to the procedures listed below. A plan will be implemented for de -energizing portions of the facility to allow safe decommissioning and formal lock out and tag out procedures. This will ensure all electrical components are placed and maintained in a safe condition for demolition activities prior to the start of work. PV Module and Tracker Removal and Recycling During decommissioning, project components that are no longer needed will be removed from the site and recycled, reused or disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal facility. The first operation is to disconnect and remove modules from the tracker assemblies. Next, the tracker and mounting structures, DC wiring materials, and combiner boxes will all be assembled and segregated for disposal or salvage. Steel piles that support the PV racking system will be removed and either re- used or recycled to the maximum amount possible. Below ground portions of the supports will either be removed or cut off at least two feet below ground surface and left in place. The demolition debris and removed equipment will be safely removed from the premises and transported to an appropriately licensed disposal facility or recycling center. Photovoltaic modules will either be re -used, recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable laws at the time of decommissioning. Roads Onsite access roads will remain in place during the decommissioning process. The roads may remain intact after decommissioning if the property owner deems them beneficial for the future use of the site. Roads that will not be used after the solar project's decommissioning will be removed at the end of the process. Fencing Project site perimeter fencing will be removed at the end of the decommissioning project, unless it may be utilized for future use of the site and the property owner requests the fence remain in place. This includes the removal of all posts, fencing material, gates, etc. to return the site to pre -project condition. Transportation and Clean up During the disassembly and demolition process, materials will be segregated and temporarily placed in gathering areas for transportation. Various materials including, but not limited to, concrete, steel, aluminum, and copper will be temporarily stockpiled at or near a designated processing location pending transport to an appropriate offsite recycling facility. All such materials will then be transported from the site to approved designated facilities for recycling, scrapping or disposal. All metals will be recycled to the extent practical given the recycling options available at the time of decommissioning. pivotenergy.net ire 4 Pivot itmr Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Decommissioning Plan In general, the decommissioning will be undertaken using traditional heavy construction equipment including, but not limited to, front end loaders, cranes, track mounted and rubber -tired excavators, bull dozers, and scrapers. Areas where excavation is required will be backfilled with natural material and compacted. Any voids left from the removal of foundations will be backfilled with surrounding subsoil and topsoil and fine graded to ensure suitable drainage and reclamation of natural grades. Soil management and re -contouring operations will be conducted to minimize the surface area disturbance and implement the activities in the safest and most efficient manner and in accordance with applicable local requirements. Major earthwork is not anticipated as construction of the site will not alter the general grade across the site. To account for post -decommissioning dust control, areas of exposed soils will be revegetated, consistent with the expected future use of the site and State or County requirements. The native dry grass vegetation will be re- established to prevent the spread of weeds. Mulching or palliatives may be used for temporary dust control until vegetation is established. Monitoring Site Restoration Upon completion of the decommissioning process, a one-year restoration monitoring period will begin. Monitoring will ensure that grading and drainage implemented is successful in stabilizing water flow patterns and that the cover vegetation (native dry grass vegetation or other depending on land use) will be reestablished to prevent the spread of weeds. Corrective actions will be implemented if such monitoring determines adverse conditions are present because of an inadequate restoration. Z. Decommissioning/ Reclamation Cost Estimates Pivot commits to working together with the County to update the cost estimates every five years from the establishment and submittal of the security bond. The cost estimates will include all costs associated with the dismantling, recycling, and safe disposal of facility parts and site reclamation activates and consider the salvage value of the facility. Initial cost estimate (2024): Fencing $5,400 Structures $73,800 Modules $54,000.00 Electrical $27,000 Site Restoration $19,800 Total $180,000.00 The scope includes: • Electrical permit fees • Removal and disposal of game fence • Removal of racking and foundations pivotenergy.net ire 4 Pivot itmr Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Decommissioning Plan • Removal of modules • Removal of electrical equipment (transformers, pads, etc.) • Removal of electrical DC string wiring and AC underground wiring • Site restoration and reclamation • Waste disposal fees • Temporary restrooms and necessary facilities for workers • Safety and protection equipment pivotenergy.net CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR PS65 CHAD SMITH SOLAR PROJECT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO CASE NO. PRE24-0003 Prepared for: Pivot Energy 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 888-734-3033 Prepared by: CORE CORE Consultants, Inc. 3473 South Broadway Englewood, CO 80113 Contact: Eric Edge, PE, CFM Phone: 303-703-4444 CORE Project Number: 23-163 May 8, 2024 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3 A. Site Location and Conditions 3 B. Soils Information 4 C. Floodplains 4 D. Irrigation 4 2. METHODOLOGY 4 A. Hydrology 4 B. Hydraulics 5 3. CONCLUSION 7 Appendices Appendix I Hydrologic Computations Appendix II References 2 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado 1. Introduction and Background This Preliminary Drainage Report has been prepared for the proposed construction of the P65 Chad Smith Solar Project (Project). The project includes the construction of solar facilities on existing agricultural land. The existing property is 80 acres of predominantly undeveloped land with one residential property in the northeast corner of the site. In the proposed condition, approximately 50 acres of the property are used for solar development, including access roads and equipment pads. Below is a summary of the total land disturbance from development. DISTURBANCE AREA SUMMARY Disturbance Surface Disturbance Area (ft2) Disturbance Area (ac) Gravel Access Drive 27,607 0.63 Electric Equipment Pad 636 0.01 Electric Structures 824 0.02 Total 29,066 0.67 A. Site Location and Conditions The Project is located within the north half of Section 15, Township 8 North, Range 66th West of the 6th Principal Meridian in the Town of Pierce, Weld County, Colorado. The site is bounded by county roads and the highway. County Road 94 is to the north and the Union Pacific Railroad and Colorado State Highway 85 are to the west. County Road 92 is to the south and County Road 33 is east of the site. The Project is located within the northwest section of the agricultural area bounded by the roadways. The existing property is 80 acres of predominantly undeveloped land with one residential property in the northeast corner of the site. Surrounding properties are privately -owned and are assumed to be used primarily for agriculture. \\\ p Sl t^ T1 \ L' 0 k 1, 0O3 k 55 ti I' \\ Figure 1. Vicinity Map. SITE 3 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado B. Soils Information A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey was performed to assist in developing hydrologic parameters. The site is predominantly B soils, indicating the soils in the area have high infiltration rates. Soil types include Ascalon fine sandy loam soils and a small portion of Otero sandy loam soils. Refer to Appendix I for soil maps. C. Floodplains There are no regulatory floodplains or special flood hazard areas within the project site or study reach. D. Irrigation No irrigation facilities were identified during the site survey and none are anticipated within the project boundary. 2. Methodology A. Hydrology The Rational Method was used to determine peak runoffs for the proposed site. The 5 -year recurrence interval was used for the minor scenario and the 100 -year recurrence interval was used for the major scenario. Per the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria (WCECC), rainfall values were sourced from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14. A summary of rainfall values is included below for reference. Refer to Appendix I for the full Atlas 14 report. Q = CIA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient I = intensity (in/hr) A = tributary area (WCECC Eq. 5.5.1) I = 28 5P1 (WCECC Eq. 5.4.1) (10+T)°786 rainfall intensity (in/hr) one -hour rainfall depth(inches) from NOAA Atlas 14 time of concentration (minutes) tc = ti + tt (WCECC 5.5.1.1) tc = time of concentration (minutes) t. E overland (initial) flow time (minutes) tr= channelized travel time (minutes) 4 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado 0.395(1.1- COX ti - 500.33(WCECC 5.5.1.2) ti C5E Li So tt Lt So KE YE overland (initial) flow time (minutes) runoff coefficient for 5 -year frequency (unitless) length of overland flow, (ft, 300 -ft max for urban and 500 -ft max for rural) average slope along the overland flow path (ft/ft) Lt Lt 60K JSo 60V (WCECC 5.5.1.2) waterway length (feet) waterway slope (feet/feet) NRCS Conveyance Factor (Table 5-6 of WCECC) travel time velocity (feet/second) SUMMARY TABLE - ONE -HOUR POINT RAINFALL (INCHES) 2 -year 5 -year 10 -year 25 -year 50 -year 100 -year 500 -year 0.878 1.18 1.47 1.93 2.32 2.76 3.94 Per Section 5.5.1 of the WCECC, a workbook was created to calculate the peak runoffs using the Rational Method. This workbook was used instead of the "UD- Rationalvl .02" workbook available for download from the county. Per Criteria, the created workbook utilizes C values from the 2007 design manual and the percent impervious defined in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 of the WCECC. B. Hydraulics Based upon the hydrologic calculation results, there are no calculable drainage impacts from the proposed solar facilities. Therefore, no hydraulic methodologies or analyses were required for the Project. Refer to Section 3.C for detailed discussion of the drainage impacts. 5 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado 3. Results A. Offsite Hydrology The proposed solar site utilizes the existing grading. All offsite flows are conveyed around the perimeter of the site through existing roadside ditches. Therefore, the site is not impacted by any offsite flows. B. Basin Descriptions The site was divided into two basins, as described below. It is noted that the project is split into two phases. Such phases were ignored for the drainage analysis since the proposed development does not impact any historic flow patterns or peak flows. A summary table of historic vs. proposed flows is attached below for reference. Refer to Appendix I for detailed hydrologic calculations. Sub -basin El Sub -basin P1 contains the north-eastern half of the existing site. The basin is 38.5 acres and consists of predominantly agricultural land and one residential property. The historic percent impervious is 3.0%. The basin conveys flow towards DP1 and continues downstream. Due to no impacts to the historic conditions, downstream of the property boundary has not been further analyzed. Sub -basin E-2 Sub -basin P2 contains the south-western half of the existing site. The basin is 49.9 acres and consists entirely of agricultural land. The historic percent impervious is 2.0%. The basin conveys flow into the roadside ditch east of Colorado State Highway 85 to DP2. Sub -basin P1 Sub -basin P1 contains the north-eastern half of the proposed site. The basin is 38.5 acres and consists of predominantly solar arrays, one existing residential property, and existing agriculture land. The proposed percent impervious is 3.0%. The basin conveys flow towards DP 1 and continues downstream. Due to no impacts to the historic conditions, downstream of the property boundary has not been further analyzed. Sub basin P2 Sub -basin P2 contains the south-western half of the proposed site. The basin is 49.9 acres and consists of predominantly solar arrays and a small portion of existing agricultural land. The historic and proposed percent impervious is 2.0%. The basin conveys flow into the roadside ditch east of Colorado State Highway 85 to DP2. Due to no impacts to the historic conditions, the roadside ditch and downstream of the property boundary have not been further analyzed. 6 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA (AC) 5 -Year (CFS) RUNOFF 100 -Year RUNOFF (CFS) 1 El 38.46 2.06 24.14 2 E2 49.87 0.33 21.65 1 P1 38.46 2.06 24.14 2 P2 49.87 0.33 21.65 C. Proposed Improvements Based on the hydrologic calculations in accordance with the WCECC, the proposed solar facilities have no impact to percent impervious or peak runoff flows within the site. Disturbance is limited to installation of ground mounted piers and typical solar facilities that create negligible changes to existing hydrologic and hydraulic patterns. With limited disturbance on site, there are no anticipated impacts from the proposed solar site. Furthermore, ASCE's Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms study in the May 2013 Journal of Hydrologic Engineering concludes that solar farms do not have adverse hydrologic impacts from excess runoff or contribute to erosion (Cook and McCuen). Because there are no anticipated impacts from the proposed solar facilities, no improvements are proposed. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, the percent impervious for the analyzed basins remains unchanged from existing to proposed conditions in accordance with the WCECC and the ASCE Hydrologic Engineering study. Therefore, no further improvements are proposed to minimize construction disturbance to the surrounding area. The proposed design does not have any impact to existing conditions and will maintain the health and safety of all surrounding public right-of-way and existing offsite properties. 7 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado 5. References Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 08123C0940E, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Effective January 20, 2016. Accessed April 19, 2024 - Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering ASCE May 2013 - Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates, Atlas 14, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Accessed April 18, 2024 - Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Accessed April 18, 2024 - Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria, Weld County, January 2021 8 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX I HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part 40° 40' 49" N 40° 39' 9" N 0 tock Map Scale: 1:14,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. 0 200 400 800 Meters 1200 Feet 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 N 0 104° 44 29" W 40° 40' 49" N 40° 39' 9" N Natural Resources Web Soil Survey all Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/15/2023 Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AO!) Area of Interest (A01) ) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines 0 0 A MAP INFORMATION C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background ,; Aerial Photography Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Survey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 24, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales A/D 1:50,000 or larger. B Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 8, 2021 Jun 12, 2021 B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points II O O O A A/D B B/D The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. ,b Natural Resources lain Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/15/2023 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Ascalon loam, slopes fine sandy 0 to 6 percent B 428.4 36.6% 23 Dacono 6 clay loam, percent slopes 0 to C 54.0 4.6% 40 Nunn loam, percent 0 slopes to 6 C 43.5 3.7% 44 Olney 0 fine to 6 sandy loam, percent slopes B 310.9 26.6% 46 Otero sandy loam, percent slopes 0 to 3 A 334.1 28.5% Totals for Area of Interest 1,170.9 100.0% e Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/15/2023 Page 3of4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher e Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/15/2023 Page 4of4 517000 'E JOINS PANEL 0908 s18rxx,mE a19uuumE JOINS PANEL 0909 '20""" E 104" 45' 00" not necessarfly ioentiry au areas suoject to nooDing, panicuiany Tram local arainage sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for possible updated or additional flood hazard information. To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BEES) and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole -foot elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly, flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management. Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0' North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations shown on this FIRM. Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction. The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 13. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1980 spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the production of FIRMs for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not affect the accuracy of this FIRM. Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. visit the National Geodetic Survey website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following address: NGS Information Services NOAA, N/NGS12 National Geodetic Survey SSMC -3, #9202 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282 (301) 713-3242 To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National Geodetic Survey at (301) 713- 3242, or visit its website at http://www.ncis.noaa.qov. Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from NAIP Orthophotography produced with a one meter ground resolution from photography dated 2013. The profile baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modeling baselines that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved topographic data, the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly from the channel centerline or appear outside the SFHA. This map reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel configurations than those shown on the previous FIRM for this jurisdiction. The floodplains and floodways that were transferred from the previous FIRM may have been adjusted to conform to these new stream channel configurations. As a result, the Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables for multiple streams in the Flood Insurance Study Report (which contains authoritative hydraulic data) may reflect stream channel distances that differ from what is shown on this map. Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de -annexations may have occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate community officials to verify current corporate limit locations. Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses; and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community is located. For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the MSC website. If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip. 104° 48' 45" 40" 41' 15" 4504uoomN 4503°0°"'N 94 4502000mN 450100m„N N 0 J w Z a _Z O 4500°°0mN 449900°1„N 4498000mN 40° 37' 30" 6 '� 5 ./. 7 �% 6 �� s ZONE Weld County 4 Areas 080266 c z ° z 3 A 'n 0 a LL0298 LL1266 2 zs Unincorporated A 85 .1 -_ 33 27 96 \ 7 I .1 ZONE A 8 _ 9 1 'i t . I +. X 10 C 0. (f m, g. i: LL0297 . . • r `.. 96 r 11 - 18 t. A. 17 re to... 15 Weld County z Unincorporated Areas a 080266 Y T n .A a r 0 O 16 94 14 r.ti v ZONE 85 fir... M .Sprint ('reek ZONE A / A 33 Weld County Unincorporated Areas 080206 t V" 19 20 21 .. [ o0 AREA SCALE ON 0812300919 OF SHOWN NUMBER 1" = 500' THIS AT A 90 - •t, , c` 1b- }`v}Wi N,: • ., 'AISS-. Wb , S. I .. . J r t. 4 Ail MAP Weid IIninco �or"ateekreas 080266, r 27 88 88 a- - 104° 48' 45" JOINS PANEL 1225 0° 41' 15' co C) co 0 w z CI) 2 0 1490000 FT 1485000 FT 1480000 FT 1475000 FT 40° 37' 30" 104° 45' 00" The 1% annual chance flood (100 -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equated or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood. ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined. ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations deter mined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE AR ZONE A99 ZONE V ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations determined. Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1% annual chance flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide protection from the 1% annual chance or greater flood. Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal flood protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined. Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the I% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. ;:� OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X ZONE X ZONE D • . •` Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. OTHER AREAS Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. Areas In which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs) CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. 1% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary Floodway boundary - - - Zone D boundary 513 (EL 987) CBRS and OPA boundary Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations, flood depths, or flood velocities. Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet* Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in feet* *Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 Cross section line Transect line 45" 02' 08", 93" 02' 12" 3100000 FT .989mom N DX5510 x •M1.5 Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) Western Hemisphere 5000 -foot ticks: Colorado State Plane Central Zone (FIPS Zone 0502), Lambert Conformal Conic projection 1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values, zone 13 Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM panel) River Mile MAP REPOSITORIES Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP January 20,2016 EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this Junsdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program al 1 800-638-6620. 500 0 MAP SCALE 1" = 1000' 1000 2000 I --r ti k - 300 0 1-L FEET L J METERS 300 600 idi PANEL 0920E FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WELD COUNTY, COLORADO AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 920 OF 2250 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) CONTAI NS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX WELD COUNTY 080266 0920 E Notice to User: The Map Number shown below should be used when placing map orders; the Community Number shown above should be used on insurance applications for the subject community. MAP NUMBER 08123C0920E 4/18/24, 8:48 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Pierce, Colorado, USA* Latitude: 40.6661°, Longitude: -104.7605° Elevation: 5103 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration 5 -min 10 -min 15 -min 30 -min Average recurrence interval (years) 1 0.240 (0.194-0.295) 0.352 (0.284-0.432) 0.429 (0.346-0.527) 0.590 (0.476-0.724) 0.291 (0.234-0.357) 0.425 (0.343-0.523) 0.519 (0.418-0.638) 0.712 (0.574-0.8761 0.386 (0.310-0.475) 0.565 (0.454-0.696) 0.689 (0.553-0.849) 0.945 (0.759-1.16) 10 0.477 (0.380-0.590) 25 0.621 (0.484-0.809) 0.699 (0.557-0.864) 0.852 (0.679-1.05) 1.17 (0.932-1.44) 50 100 0.746 (0.562-0.976) 0.909 1.09 (0.709-1.18) L(0.823-1.43) 1.11 (0.864-1.44) 1.52 (1.19-1.98) 1.33 (1.00-1.74) 1.83 (1.38-2.39) 0.884 1(0.639-1.18) 1.30 (0.935-1.72) 1.58 (1.14-2.10) 2.17 (1.57-2.89) 200 1.04 (0.713-1.41) 1.52 (1.04-2.06) 1.85 (1.27-2.51) 2.55 (1.75-3.45) 500 1.26 (0.826-1.74) 1.84 (1.21-2.55) 2.25 (1.48-3.10) 3.09 (2.03-4.27) 1000 1.44 (0.912-1.99) 2.11 (1.34-2.92) 2.57 (1.63-3.56) 3.54 (2.24-4.89) 60 -min 0.718 0.878 (0.580-0.882)i (0.708-1.08) 1.18 0.948-1.45) 1.47 1.17-1.82) 1.93 1.50-2.51) 2.32 (1.75-3.04) 2.76 (1.99-3.67) 3.24 (2.23-4.39) 3.94 (2.59-5.44) 4.52 (2.86-6.24) 2 -hr 3 -hr 0.847 I 1.04 (0.687-1.03) (0.846-1.27) 0.907 (0.738-1.10) 6 -hr 12 -hr 1.02 (0.836-1.23) 24 -hr 1.22 1.00-1.46) 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 1 7 -day 10 -day 20 -day 1.47 (1.22-1.75) 1.68 (1.39-1.98) 1.84 (1.53-2.16) 1.12 (0.913-1.37) 1.28 (1.04-1.54) 1.48 (1.21-1.77) 1.71 (1.41-2.04) 1.97 (1.64-2.33) 1.96 (1.64-2.30) 2.22 (1.86-2.59) 2.14 (1.78-2.52) 2.45 (2.06-2.85) 2.28 (1.90-2.68) 2.62 (2.20-3.06) 1.42 (1.14-1.73) 1.53 (1.24-1.87) 1.75 (1.42-2.12) y 1.94 (1.59-2.34) 2.91 (2.45-3.39) 3.19 (2.70-3.69) 3.71 (3.14-4.29) 30 -day 3.79 (3.22-4.36) 1 4.35 (3.69-5.01) 45 -day 60 -day 4.49 (3.82-5.14) 5.05 (4.31-5.76) 5.14 (4.37-5.89) 5.80 (4.94-6.62) 1.77 2.33 (1.42-2.17) (1.83-3.02) 1.92 (1.54-2.35) 2.18 (1.76-2.65) 2.38 (1.93-2.87) 2.16 (1.78-2.58) 2.59 2.12-3.10) 2.49 (2.06-2.95) 2.68 (2.22-3.16) 2.96 (2.44-3.52) 3.16 (2.60-3.74) 2.84 (2.36-3.34)J 3.33 2.75-3.93) 2.53 (1.99-3.26) 2.84 (2.24-3.62) 3.04 (2.41-3.84) 3.25 (2.60-4.08) 3.66 (2.93-4.52) 3.87 (3.11-4.75) 4.06 (3.26-4.96) 3.29 3.86 4.66 (2.75-3.85) (3.20-4.53) i (3.75-5.62) 3.66 (3.06-4.26) 4.55 (3.83-5.26) 5.26 (4.44-6.06) 4.28 (3.56-5.00) 5.23 (4.38-6.08) 5.99 5.04-6.92) 6.17 (5.23-7.08) 7.00 (5.90-8.05) 6.98 (5.93-7.98) 7.91 (6.69-9.08) 5.13 (4.13-6.15) 6.16 (4.98-7.30) 6.98 (5.67-8.22) 8.09 (6.59-9.47) 9.12 (7.44-10.6) 2.81 2.13-3.65) 3.06 (2.33-3.96) 3.41 2.61-4.36) 3.60 (2.78-4.57) 3.82 (2.97-4.82) 4.24 (3.31-5.28) 4.46 3.49-5.52) 4.66 (3.65-5.74) 5.29 (4.16-6.45) 5.79 4.56-7.01) 6.86 (5.44-8.22) 7.72 (6.14-9.20) 8.90 (7.11-10.5 3.35 3.94 I 4.79 5.49 (2.44-4.42) (2.73-5.30) I (3.18-6.57) (3.51-7.53J 3.64 (2.66-4.79) 4.02 (2.96-5.23) 4.21 (3.12-5.44) 4.45 (3.33-5.71) 4.86 (3.66-6.16) 4.29 (2.99-5.75) 4.68 (3.29-6.21) 4.88 (3.46-6.42) 5.14 (3.68-6.73)1 5.53 (3.99-7.15) 5.22 (3.48-7.13) 5.63 (3.79-7.62) 5.83 (3.96-7.83) 6.14 (4.21-8.19) 6.48 (4.48-8.55) 5.08 5.76 6.70 (3.84-6.41) (4.17-7.40) (4.66-8.80) g 5.29 (4.01-6.64) 5.94 (4.52-7.38) 6.45 4.92-7.96) 7.55 (5.80-9.22) 8.44 (6.51-10.3) 9.67 7.49-11.7 5.96 6.91 (4.33-7.64 (4.83-9.04 6.61 1 (4.82-8.38) 7.52 5.28-9.74) 5.99 (3.85-8.18) 6.41 (4.17-8.69) 6.61 1 (4.34-8.90) 6.96 (4.62-9.30) 7.23 (4.85-9.60) 7.46 (5.04-9.85) 7.66 (5.20-10.1) 8.22 (5.63-10.8) 7.12 8.01 8.68 (5.21-8.97) (5.64-10.3) (5.97-11.3) 8.24 (6.09-10.3) 9.16 (6.80-11.4) 1 10.4 (7.78-12.9) 9.14 (6.51-11.7) 9.81 (6.82-12.7)j 10.1 (7.22-12.8) 11.4 (8.20-14.4) 10.8 (7.54-13.9) 12.1 (8.51-15.5) 10.0 10.8 11.6 12.6 13.3 (8.00-11.8) (8.41-13.0) (8.69-14.3) (9.09-15.8) (9.40-17.0) Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.6661 &Ion=-104.7605&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4 4/18/24, 8:48 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server C -1- J O c O d -el a- .5 a) d 0- a, C O c O It Li 6 12 10 C IDS -based depth -duration -frequency (DDF) curves Latitude: 40.6661°r Longitude: -104.7505° C c RI ME LA 6 LA rl r -I 10 25 50 100 200 500 MOM Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 a C ker rn !r- Duration L. grz N ED [10 IPU N 01 Average recurrence interval (years) a. _,.ti , nj r r ry 7 -Oay O 6 di O rc4 rn c S ? 1000 Created (GMT): Fri Apr 19 C 2:48:31 2024 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 — 200 500 1 000 Duration 5-mrr'n 10 -min 15 -min 30 -min — 6 0 -rirnmn 2 -hr 3 -hr 6 -hr 12 -hr 24 -hr 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 7 -day 10 -day 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 6' -day. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?Iat=40.6661 &Ion=-104.7605&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/4 4/18/24, 8:48 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server Nonni n 3km I t 2mi Ie rr 1 Pierce A r > > Zat LetaZ Cri ri 0 11 0 v 4 Large scale terrain unik For kc:oll ins Lori'ie :134:5[Ii B r r►_iIcIere 100km 1 60mi StAialrlizt -117, .%-s 7-.. -_ •. Cheyenne • I Greeley' • Longm nt Deny Large scale map i F._: t Cu'Ili 1'.-_� • h: en n D en'v er 100km t-- 60mi \e-lergi 141\ Large scale aerial https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?Iat=40.6661 &Ion=-104.7605&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 3/4 4/18/24, 8:48 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov Disclaimer https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?Iat=40.6661 &Ion=-104.7605&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 4/4 Table 5-2 Percentage Impervious Values for Weld County Land Use or Surface Characteristics Percent Impervious (%) Commercial 95 Residential: Single -Family Greater than 2.5 acres or larger 12 Greater than 0.75 acre to 2.5 acres 20 Greater than 0.25 acre to 0.75 acre 30 0.25 acre or smaller 45 Multi -Unit Detached 60 Multi -Unit Attached 75 Apartments 80 Industrial: Light 80 Heavy 90 Solar Facilities: A& B Soils 2 C & D Soils 25 Parks, Cemeteries 10 Playgrounds 25 Schools 55 Railroad Yard Areas 50 Roofs 90 Undeveloped Areas: Historic Flow Analysis 2 Greenbelts, Agricultural 2 Streets: Paved 100 Packed Gravel (Includes Road Base and Compacted, Cleared, Earthen Areas typically used for Roads/Parking/Storage) 40 Recycled Asphalt Pavement 75 Drives and Walks 90 Table 5-3 through Table 5-5 use the impervious percent value (expressed as a decimal) to calculate the runoff coefficients for Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) hydrologic soil groups A, B, and C/D for various storm return periods. WELD COUNTY ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA I 40 5/1/2024 PS 65 Chad Smith Solar Project CORE Project #: 23-164 Prepared By: CORE IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS -REFERENCE WCECC Table 5-2 Residential & Commercial Single Family Multi -Family Solar Facilities Soil Type Soil Type A Area Soil Type B Area Soil Type C/D Area 0.25 - 0.75 acres 0.75 - 2.5 acres 2.5 acres or larger Attached Roofs Asphalt/ Ponded Water Packed Gravel A & B Soils C & D Soils Agriculture / Historic % Imperv. 30.00% 20.00% 12.00% 75.00% 90.00% 100.00% 40.00% 2.00% 25.00% 2.00% Design Total Percent Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) BASIN Point Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) Impervious El 1 - - 3.67 - - - - - - 34.78 38.46 3.0% 7.69 30.76 - E2 2 - - - - - - - - - 49.87 49.87 2.0% 44.89 4.99 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - P1 1 - - 3.67 - - - - 20.96 - 13.82 38.46 3.0% 7.69 30.76 - P2 2 - - - - - - - 36.59 - 13.29 49.87 2.0% 44.89 4.99 0.00 CORE Consultants, Inc. PS 65 Chad Smith Solar Project CORE Project #: 23-164 Prepared By: CORE COMPOSITE DEVELOPED BASIN WEIGHTED "C" CALCULATIONS -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 RUNOFF Table 6-4 i = % imperviousness/100 expressed as a decimal CA = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG A soils CB = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG B soils °CD = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG C and D soils. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Equation Hydrologic Soil Group A 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Yea r Cs = (-0.08i + 0.09) + (1.31i3 - 1.4412 + 1.135i - 0.12) Cm=( -0.14i+0.17)+ (1.31i3- 1.4412+1.1351 - 0.12) Cmo = (-0.25i + 0.32) + (1.31i3- 1.4412+1.1351 -0.12) Equation Hydrologic Soil Group B 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year _ (Ca +Ccdi2 Cio = (Ca + Cs)/ Z Cioo = (Ca + t14/ 2 Hydrologic Soil Group CM 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year Equation Cs = (-0.101+ 0.11) + Cm _ (-0.18i + 0.21) + Cioc = (-0.391 + 0.46) + (0.858i3 - 0.78612 + (0.858i3 - 0.786iz + (0.858i3- 0.7861' + 0.774i + 0.04) 0.774i + 0.04) 0.7741 + 0.04) Basin ID % Imperv. i Soil Type Basin Area Total Area 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year El 3.0% 0.03 A B CorD 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.27 0.22 7.69 30.76 0.00 38.46 0.07 0.15 0.34 0.37 0.51 E2 2.0% 0.02 A B CorD 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.36 0.51 44.89 4.99 0.00 49.87 0.01 0.08 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - PI 3.0% 0.03 A B CorD 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.27 0.22 0.37 0.51 7.69 30.76 0.00 38.46 0.07 0.15 0.34 P2 2.0% 0.02 A B CorD 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.36 0.51 44.89 4.99 0.00 49.87 0.01 0.08 0.23 PS 65 Chad Smith Solar Project CORE Project #: 23-164 Prepared By: CORE TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS I BASIN A -REFERENCE WCECC Section 5.5.1.1 SF -2 NRCS Conveyance factors, K -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol. 1 RUNOFF Table 6-2 Heavy Meadow 3 Short Grass Pasture & Lawns 7 Tillage/field 5 Nearly Bare Ground Grassed Waterway 15 10 Paved Area & Shallow Gutter 20 SUB -BASIN DATA INITIAL TIME / OVERLAND CHANNEL / T(t) TRAVEL TIME (URBANIZED T(c) CHECK BASINS) FINAL T(c) min. DRAIN BASIN AREA ac. C(5) Length ft. Slope % T(i) min Length ft. Slope % Coeff. Velocity fps T(t) min. COMP. T(c) % IMPER- VIOUS Eq USDCM . 6-5 El 38.46 0.34 500 0.8 33.6 1950 0.8 5 0.4 74.4 108.0 N/A N/A 108.0 E2 49.87 0.23 500 0.7 39.4 1710 0.7 5 0.4 66.7 106.1 N/A N/A 106.1 P1 38.46 0.34 500 0.8 33.6 1950 0.8 5 0.4 74.4 108.0 N/A N/A 108.0 P2 49.87 0.23 500 0.7 39.4 1710 0.7 5 0.4 66.7 106.1 N/A N/A 106.1 PS 65 Chad Smith Solar Project CORE Project #: 23-164 Prepared By: CORE RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF 5 -Year STORM SF -3 -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol. 1 EQ 5-1 & EQ 6-1 Rainfall Depth -Duration -Frequency (1 -hr) = 1.18 BASIN INFORMATON DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN POINT DRAIN BASIN N AREA ac. 5yr COEFF Runoff T(c) min C x A I in/hr Q cfs 1 El 3846 0.07 108.0 2.60 1 0.79 2.06 2 E2 49.87 0.01 106.1 0.41 0.80 0.33 1 P1 38.46 0.07 108.0 2.60 0.79 2.06 2 P2 49.87 0.01 106.1 0.41 0.80 0.33 PS 65 Chad Smith Solar Project CORE Project #: 23-164 Prepared By: CORE RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF 100-YR STORM SF -3 Rainfall Depth -Duration -Frequency (1 -hr) = 2.76 -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol. I EQ 5-1 & EQ 6-1 BASIN INFORMATON DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN POINT DRAIN BASIN AREA ac. N 100YR RUNNOFF COEFF T(c) min C x A I in/hr Q oft 1 El 38.46 034 108.0 13.05 1.85 24.14 2 E2 49.87 0.23 106.1 11.55 1.87 21.65 1 N P1 N 38.46 0.34 108.0 13.05 1.85 24.14 2 P2 49.87 0.23 106.1 11.55 1.87 21.65 DRAINAGE MAPS.dwg 5/2/2024 3:39 PM ; X:123-163 PS 65 Chad Smith P11Civi11CAD1PIans\Phases I & II \ 1 FO 1 1 \ S CO 150' EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 85 RIGHT OF WAY \ • s • • S, / X 5110 W Cp 51 13> O J1_sQ% / N -• - ipp N. 1 M1 r / • / SJ N OFFSITE DRAINAGE DITCH a T J' i‘ , I , 5108. "% 510 % „ • /n I 5106 -5105— / r `5100 5099 - N • N \/ 7 / 7 % % �._-I 5103 E2 \--'-_�_ 70.01 / `9.87 x0.23 Orr Li M1 N M1 MATCH LINE SHEET 2 M1 or _ J 401. •I • fret r• ZS L - N N -04 \ \ \ El r r _T0Az \ \ r 38.6 lc 4 x0.34 i J N .' 3/4 r• - ♦ allar Aft - to N. r l ` arr ♦ } / aft l aft I � I I 1 1 7 43/4 5104 74‘ s 1 ti \ t \ 1 \ \ 1 \ \ \ ` 1 1 �4 1 \ \ • 6 _ 5102 5100 EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN Cn cn kt N • O 4 5095 - O 0 100' 200' 1 inch = 100 ft. HALF-SIZE PLOT El 0VON AJNf1O3 EXISTING O LEGEND PROPOSED BASIN DESIGNATION 5 YEAR COEFFICIENTS 100 YEAR COEFFICIENTS DESIGN POINT DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EASEMENT CENTERLINE PROJECT BOUNDARY WOOD FENCE CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS OVERLAND FLOW CRITICAL PATH CHANNELIZED FLOW CRITICAL PATH PREPARED FOR: 0 O en 5 co co O cc CA*** LO z UJ Uri Lb Liz O8: :3: 3 u° °new sit or 0 REVISION DESCRIPTION IX O WELD COUNTY, CO 0. LLI DESIGNED BY: ,MMG DRAWN BY: WAG CHECKED BY: EE JOB NO. 23-164 SHEET DRAINAGE MAPS.dwg 5/2/2024 3:39 PM ; X:123-163 PS 65 Chad Smith P11Civi11CAD1PIans\Phases I & II 1 1 ME 1 1 150' EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 85 RIGHT OF WAY o 1 \ r — 1 OFFSITE DRAINAGE DITCH 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 N. 1 V L 1 • S 1 So 1 1 1 5099- 1 U _ 00 ( 7 1 1 \ '• lJ `-44 / • -r0.(11 / x9.87 x0.23 y103 / • I = = • M . i y 1 j / / ^ r/ lr I / \ / -- � f -5095 509.1 5092 fit- / V \ 7 T r i -. s V J MATCH LINE SHEET 0140 / -- { 111 alp air { / / MI = ♦ 0 / 1 / / f • -iOi 5 .5/00 \ \ / } / 4 / / J 411111/ 4111, } 1 MI = • N N to 0 100' 200' 1 inch = 100 ft. HALF-SIZE PLOT EXISTING LEGEND PROPOSED ---------- nnnnn 5280 5279---- O 1 �u',4„l✓.�AE\iI"4, tw'i'g 4'�6.,4:d,^rZ .. BASIN DESIGNATION 5 YEAR COEFFICIENTS 100 YEAR COEFFICIENTS DESIGN POINT DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W ) CENTERLINE PROJECT BOUNDARY WOOD FENCE CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS OVERLAND FLOW CRITICAL PATH CHANNELIZED FLOW CRITICAL PATH PREPARED FOR: O a N }t H N Q W �0 > coo vhf/`W = w UJ Lb o O u W Lv U >- m u O O REVISION DESCRIPTION u 0 U) a - WELD COUNTY, CO Q 2 Cie Z D LIJ I — W V w 4(O GP X DESIGNED BY: MMG DRAWN BY: MMG CHECKED BY: EE JOB NO. 23-164 SHEET 2 OF 4 DRAINAGE MAPS.dwg 5/2/2024 3:39 PM ; X:123-163 PS 65 Chad Smith P11Civi11CAD1PIans\Phases I & II 1 \ 1 HFO \ 150' EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 85 RIGHT OF WAY OFFSITE DRAINAGE DITCH N 0 1 C • ( Ca i �HcH 5099 1 5725 asa • OH— — O Orr COUNTY ROAD 94 s MATCH LINE SHEET 4 4 O IM 7510 103 - 5102 4,00 2 CI EXISTING -STRUCTURES TO REMAIN \ O CS • • 5096- ___ 100' 200' 1 inch = 100 ft. HALF-SIZE PLOT EXISTING 5280 LEGEND PROPOSED £E avow AINno3 BASIN DESIGNATION 5 YEAR COEFFICIENTS 100 YEAR COEFFICIENTS DESIGN POINT DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EASEMENT CENTERLINE PROJECT BOUNDARY WOOD FENCE CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS OVERLAND FLOW CRITICAL PATH CHANNELIZED FLOW CRITICAL PATH PREPARED FOR: 0 Tr c‘j H cal co O cc UJ rine Li, vi ci O REVISION DESCRIPTION 0 0 a- WELD COUNTY, CO LJJ CL O DESIGNED BY: ,MMG DRAWN BY: WAG CHECKED BY: EE JOB NO. 23-164 SHEET 3 OF 4 DRAINAGE MAPS.dwg 5/2/2024 3:39 PM ; X:123-163 PS 65 Chad Smith P11Civi11CAD1PIans\Phases I & II N ,d. 150' EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 85 RIGHT OF WAY 1 OFFSITE DRAINAGE DITCH tP • 5099 kit CP N • • 5095 5093 5004 a MATCH LINE SHEET 3 O 0 ks / 5.4 9, ', ') , • • • ;>• 0 100' 200' 1 inch = 100 ft. HALF-SIZE PLOT EXISTING LEGEND PROPOSED BASIN DESIGNATION 5 YEAR COEFFICIENTS 100 YEAR COEFFICIENTS DESIGN POINT DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EASEMENT CENTERLINE PROJECT BOUNDARY WOOD FENCE CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS OVERLAND FLOW CRITICAL PATH CHANNELIZED FLOW CRITICAL PATH PREPARED FOR: o ELL weAt vi co ILI to 0 ri 0 c0 0 Lij UJ uJ REVISION DESCRIPTION 111 0 DC 0 tan en WELD COUNTY, CO LIJ 0 CL DESIGNED BY: ,MMG DRAWN BY: WAG CHECKED BY: EE JOB NO. 23-164 SHEET 4 OF 4 CORE Preliminary Drainage Report P65 Chad Smith Solar Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX II REFERENCES Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lauren M. Cook, S.M.ASCE1; and Richard H. McCuen, M.ASCE2 Downloaded from ascelibrary. org by Eli Johnson on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Abstract: Because of the benefits of solar energy, the number of solar farms is increasing; however, their hydrologic impacts have not been studied. The goal of this study was to determine the hydrologic effects of solar farms and examine whether or not storm -water management is needed to control runoff volumes and rates. A model of a solar farm was used to simulate runoff for two conditions: the pre- and postpaneled conditions. Using sensitivity analyses, modeling showed that the solar panels themselves did not have a significant effect on the runoff volumes, peaks, or times to peak. However, if the ground cover under the panels is gravel or bare ground, owing to design decisions or lack of maintenance, the peak discharge may increase significantly with storm -water management needed. In addition, the kinetic energy of the flow that drains from the panels was found to be greater than that of the rainfall, which could cause erosion at the base of the panels. Thus, it is recommended that the grass beneath the panels be well maintained or that a buffer strip be placed after the most downgradient row of panels. This study, along with design recommendations, can be used as a guide for the future design of solar farms. DOE 10.1061/(ASCE) HE.1943-5584.0000530. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. CE Database subject headings: Hydrology; Land use; Solar power; Floods; Surface water; Runoff; Stormwater management. Author keywords: Hydrology; Land use change; Solar energy; Flooding; Surface water runoff; Storm -water management. Introduction Storm -water management practices are generally implemented to reverse the effects of land -cover changes that cause increases in volumes and rates of runoff. This is a concern posed for new types of land -cover change such as the solar farm. Solar energy is a re- newable energy source that is expected to increase in importance in the near future. Because solar farms require considerable land, it is necessary to understand the design of solar farms and their potential effect on erosion rates and storm runoff, especially the impact on offsite properties and receiving streams. These farms can vary in size from 8 ha (20 acres) in residential areas to 250 ha (600 acres) in areas where land is abundant. The solar panels are impervious to rain water; however, they are mounted on metal rods and placed over pervious land. In some cases, the area below the panel is paved or covered with gravel. Service roads are generally located between rows of panels. Altl- hough some panels are stationary, others are designed to move so that the angle of the panel varies with the angle of the sun. The angle can range, depending on the latitude, from 22° during the summer months to 74° during the winter months. In addition, the angle and direction can also change throughout the day. The issue posed is whether or not these rows of impervious panels will change the runoff characteristics of the site, specifically increase runoff volumes or peak discharge rates. If the increases are hydro- logically significant, storm -water management facilities may be needed. Additionally, it is possible that the velocity of water 1Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021. 2The Ben Dyer Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- ing, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 (corresponding author). E-mail: rhmccuen@eng.umd.edu Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 12, 2010; approved on October 20, 2011; published online on October 24, 2011. Discussion period open until October 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi- neering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-069912013/5- 536-541/$25.00. draining from the edge of the panels is sufficient to cause erosion of the soil below the panels, especially where the maintenance roadways are bare ground. The outcome of this study provides guidance for assessing the hydrologic effects of solar farms, which is important to those who plan, design, and install arrays of solar panels. Those who design solar farms may need to provide for storm -water management. This study investigated the hydrologic effects of solar farms, assessed whether or not storm -water management might be needed, and if the velocity of the runoff from the panels could be sufficient to cause erosion of the soil below the panels. Model Development Solar farms are generally designed to maximize the amount of en- ergy produced per unit of land area, while still allowing space for maintenance. The hydrologic response of solar farms is not usually considered in design. Typically, the panels will be arrayed in long rows with separations between the rows to allow for maintenance vehicles. To model a typical layout, a unit width of one panel was assumed, with the length of the downgradient strip depending on the size of the farm. For example, a solar farm with 30 rows of 200 panels each could be modeled as a strip of 30 panels with space between the panels for maintenance vehicles. Rainwater that drains from the upper panel onto the ground will flow over the land under the 29 panels on the downgradient strip. Depending on the land cover, infiltration losses would be expected as the runoff flows to the bottom of the slope. To determine the effects that the solar panels have on runoff characteristics, a model of a solar farm was developed. Runoff in the form of sheet flow without the addition of the solar panels served as the prepaneled condition. The paneled condition assumed a downgradient series of cells with one solar panel per ground cell. Each cell was separated into three sections: wet, dry, and spacer. The dry section is that portion directly underneath the solar panel, unexposed directly to the rainfall. As the angle of the panel from the horizontal increases, more of the rain will fall directly onto 536 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Downloaded from ascelibrary. org by Eli Johnson on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. the ground; this section of the cell is referred to as the wet section. The spacer section is the area between the rows of panels used by maintenance vehicles. Fig. 1 is an image of two solar panels and the spacer section allotted for maintenance vehicles. Fig. 2 is a sche- matic of the wet, dry, and spacer sections with their respective di- mensions. In Fig. 1, tracks from the vehicles are visible on what is modeled within as the spacer section. When the solar panel is hori- zontal, then the length longitudinal to the direction that runoff will occur is the length of the dry and wet sections combined. Runoff from a dry section drains onto the downgradient spacer section. Runoff from the spacer section flows to the wet section of the next downgradient cell. Water that drains from a solar panel falls directly onto the spacer section of that cell. The length of the spacer section is constant. During a storm event, the loss rate was assumed constant for the 24-h storm be- cause a wet antecedent condition was assumed. The lengths of the wet and dry sections changed depending on the angle of the solar panel. The total length of the wet and dry sections was set Fig. 1. Maintenance or "spacer" section between two rows of solar panels (photo by John E. Showler, reprinted with permission) Ld Direction of Flow Wet section Dry section Spacer section 5 m 3.5 m Fig. 2. Wet, dry, and spacer sections of a single cell with lengths Lw, Ls, and Ld with the solar panel covering the dry section equal to the length of one horizontal solar panel, which was as- sumed to be 3.5 m. When a solar panel is horizontal, the dry section length would equal 3.5 m and the wet section length would be zero. In the paneled condition, the dry section does not receive direct rainfall because the rain first falls onto the solar panel then drains onto the spacer section. However, the dry section does infiltrate some of the runoff that comes from the upgradient wet section. The wet section was modeled similar to the spacer section with rain falling directly onto the section and assuming a constant loss rate. For the presolar panel condition, the spacer and wet sections are modeled the same as in the paneled condition; however, the cell does not include a dry section. In the prepaneled condition, rain falls directly onto the entire cell. When modeling the prepaneled condition, all cells receive rainfall at the same rate and are subject to losses. All other conditions were assumed to remain the same such that the prepaneled and paneled conditions can be compared. Rainfall was modeled after an natural resources conservation service (NRCS) Type II Storm (McCuen 2005) because it is an ac- curate representation of actual storms of varying characteristics that are imbedded in intensity -duration -frequency (IDF) curves. For each duration of interest, a dimensionless hyetograph was devel- oped using a time increment of 12 s over the duration of the storm (see Fig. 3). The depth of rainfall that corresponds to each storm magnitude was then multiplied by the dimensionless hyetograph. For a 2-h storm duration, depths of 40.6, 76.2, and 101.6 mm were used for the 2-, 25-, and 100 -year events. The 2- and 6-h duration hyetographs were developed using the center portion of the 24-h storm, with the rainfall depths established with the Baltimore IDF curve. The corresponding depths for a 6-h duration were 53.3, 106.7, and 132.1 mm, respectively. These magnitudes were chosen to give a range of storm conditions. During each time increment, the depth of rain is multiplied by the cell area to determine the volume of rain added to each section of each cell. This volume becomes the storage in each cell. Depend- ing on the soil group, a constant volume of losses was subtracted from the storage. The runoff velocity from a solar panel was calcu- lated using Manning's equation, with the hydraulic radius for sheet flow assumed to equal the depth of the storage on the panel (Bedient and Huber 2002). Similar assumptions were made to com- pute the velocities in each section of the surface sections. 20 40 60 Time (min) 80 100 120 Fig. 3. Dimensionless hyetograph of 2-h Type II storm JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 537 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Downloaded from ascelibrary. org by Eli Johnson on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Runoff from one section to the next and then to the next downgradient cell was routed using the continuity of mass. The routing coefficient depended on the depth of flow in storage and the velocity of runoff. Flow was routed from the wet section to the dry section to the spacer section, with flow from the spacer section draining to the wet section of the next cell. Flow from the most downgradient cell was assumed to be the outflow. Discharge rates and volumes from the most downgradient cell were used for com- parisons between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. Alternative Model Scenarios To assess the effects of the different variables, a section of 30 cells, each with a solar panel, was assumed for the base model. Each cell was separated individually into wet, dry, and spacer sections. The area had a total ground length of 225 m with a ground slope of 1% and width of 5 m, which was the width of an average solar panel. The roughness coefficient (Engman 1986) for the silicon solar panel was assumed to be that of glass, 0.01. Roughness coefficients of 0.15 for grass and 0.02 for bare ground were also assumed. Loss rates of 0.5715 cm/h (0.225 in./h) and 0.254 cm/h (0.1 in./h) for B and C soils, respectively, were assumed. The prepaneled condition using the 2-h, 25 -year rainfall was assumed for the base condition, with each cell assumed to have a good grass cover condition. All other analyses were made assum- ing a paneled condition. For most scenarios, the runoff volumes and peak discharge rates from the paneled model were not significantly greater than those for the prepaneled condition. Over a total length of 225 m with 30 solar panels, the runoff increased by 0.26 m3, which was a difference of only 0.35%. The slight increase in runoff volume reflects the slightly higher velocities for the paneled con- dition. The peak discharge increased by 0.0013 m3, a change of only 0.31%. The time to peak was delayed by one time increment, i.e., 12 s. Inclusion of the panels did not have a significant hydro- logic impact. Storm Magnitude The effect of storm magnitude was investigated by changing the magnitude from a 25 -year storm to a 2 -year storm. For the 2 -year storm, the rainfall and runoff volumes decreased by approximately 50%. However, the runoff from the paneled watershed condition increased compared to the prepaneled condition by approximately the same volume as for the 25 -year analysis, 0.26 m3. This increase represents only a 0.78% increase in volume. The peak discharge and the time to peak did not change significantly. These results re- flect runoff from a good grass cover condition and indicated that the general conclusion of very minimal impacts was the same for dif- ferent storm magnitudes. Ground Slope The effect of the downgradient ground slope of the solar farm was also examined. The angle of the solar panels would influence the velocity of flows from the panels. As the ground slope was in- creased, the velocity of flow over the ground surface would be closer to that on the panels. This could cause an overall increase in discharge rates. The ground slope was changed from 1 to 5%, with all other conditions remaining the same as the base conditions. With the steeper incline, the volume of losses decreased from that for the 1% slope, which is to be expected because the faster velocity of the runoff would provide less opportunity for infiltra- tion. However, between the prepaneled and paneled conditions, the increase in runoff volume was less than 1%. The peak discharge and the time to peak did not change. Therefore, the greater ground slope did not significantly influence the response of the solar farm. Soil Type The effect of soil type on the runoff was also examined. The soil group was changed from B soil to C soil by varying the loss rate. As expected, owing to the higher loss rate for the C soil, the depths of runoff increased by approximately 7.5% with the C soil when com- pared with the volume for B soils. However, the runoff volume for the C soil condition only increased by 0.17% from the prepaneled condition to the paneled condition. In comparison with the B soil, a difference of 0.35% in volume resulted between the two conditions. Therefore, the soil group influenced the actual volumes and rates, but not the relative effect of the paneled condition when compared to the prepaneled condition. Panel Angle Because runoff velocities increase with slope, the effect of the angle of the solar panel on the hydrologic response was examined. Analy- ses were made for angles of 30° and 70° to test an average range from winter to summer. The hydrologic response for these angles was compared to that of the base condition angle of 45°. The other site conditions remained the same. The analyses showed that the angle of the panel had only a slight effect on runoff volumes and discharge rates. The lower angle of 30° was associated with an in- creased runoff volume, whereas the runoff volume decreased for the steeper angle of 70° when compared with the base condition of 45°. However, the differences (-0.5%) were very slight. Never- theless, these results indicate that, when the solar panel was closer to horizontal, i.e., at a lower angle, a larger difference in runoff volume occurred between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. These differences in the response result are from differences in loss rates. The peak discharge was also lower at the lower angle. At an angle of 30°, the peak discharge was slightly lower than at the higher angle of 70°. For the 2-h storm duration, the time to peak of the 30° angle was 2 min delayed from the time to peak of when the panel was positioned at a 70° angle, which reflects the longer travel times across the solar panels. Storm Duration To assess the effect of storm duration, analyses were made for 6-h storms, testing magnitudes for 2-, 25-, and 100 -year return periods, with the results compared with those for the 2-h rainfall events. The longer storm duration was tested to determine whether a longer du- ration storm would produce a different ratio of increase in runoff between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. When compared to runoff volumes from the 2-h storm, those for the 6-h storm were 34% greater in both the paneled and prepaneled cases. However, when comparing the prepaneled to the paneled condition, the in- crease in the runoff volume with the 6-h storm was less than 1% regardless of the return period. The peak discharge and the time -to -peak did not differ significantly between the two condi- tions. The trends in the hydrologic response of the solar farm did not vary with storm duration. Ground Cover The ground cover under the panels was assumed to be a native grass that received little maintenance. For some solar farms, the area be- neath the panel is covered in gravel or partially paved because the panels prevent the grass from receiving sunlight. Depending on the 538 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Downloaded from ascelibrary. org by Eli Johnson on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. volume of traffic, the spacer cell could be grass, patches of grass, or bare ground. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether or not these alternative ground -cover conditions would affect the runoff characteristics. This was accomplished by changing the Manning's n for the ground beneath the panels. The value of n under the pan- els, i.e., the dry section, was set to 0.015 for gravel, with the value for the spacer or maintenance section set to 0.02, i.e., bare ground. These can be compared to the base condition of a native grass (n = 0.15). A good cover should promote losses and delay the runoff. For the smoother surfaces, the velocity of the runoff increased and the losses decreased, which resulted in increasing runoff vol- umes. This occurred both when the ground cover under the panels was changed to gravel and when the cover in the spacer section was changed to bare ground. Owing to the higher velocities of the flow, runoff rates from the cells increased significantly such that it was necessary to reduce the computational time increment. Fig. 4(a) shows the hydrograph from a 30 -panel area with a time incre- ment of 12 s. With a time increment of 12 s, the water in each cell is discharged at the end of every time increment, which results in no attenuation of the flow; thus, the undulations shown in Fig. 4(a) result. The time increment was reduced to 3 s for the 2-h storm, which resulted in watershed smoothing and a rational hydrograph shape [Fig. 4(b)] . The results showed that the storm runoff 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 coE 0.06 0 0.05 co 0 0.04 0.03 (a) 0.02 0.01 0 0.07 0.06 0.05 U) 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Time (min) 0 _ 0 (b) I aTh--- I Paneled Pre -paneled 4 - alb me IS 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Time (min) 180 200 Fig. 4. Hydrograph with time increment of (a) 12 s; (b) 3 s with Manning's n for bare ground increased by 7% from the grass -covered scenario to the scenario with gravel under the panel. The peak discharge increased by 73% for the gravel ground cover when compared with the grass cover without the panels. The time to peak was 10 min less with the gravel than with the grass, which reflects the effect of differ- ences in surface roughness and the resulting velocities. If maintenance vehicles used the spacer section regularly and the grass cover was not adequately maintained, the soil in the spacer section would be compacted and potentially the runoff volumes and rates would increase. Grass that is not maintained has the potential to become patchy and turn to bare ground. The grass under the panel may not get enough sunlight and die. Fig. 1 shows the result of the maintenance trucks frequently driving in the spacer section, which diminished the grass cover. The effect of the lack of solar farm maintenance on runoff char- acteristics was modeled by changing the Manning's n to a value of 0.02 for bare ground. In this scenario, the roughness coefficient for the ground under the panels, i.e., the dry section, as well as in the spacer cell was changed from grass covered to bare ground (n = 0.02).The effects were nearly identical to that of the gravel. The runoff volume increased by 7% from the grass -covered to the bare -ground condition. The peak discharge increased by 72% when compared with the grass -covered condition. The runoff for the bare - ground condition also resulted in an earlier time to peak by approx- imately 10 min. Two other conditions were also modeled, showing similar results. In the first scenario, gravel was placed directly under the panel, and healthy grass was placed in the spacer section, which mimics a possible design decision. Under these conditions, the peak discharge increased by 42%, and the volume of runoff increased by 4%, which suggests that storm -water management would be necessary if gravel is placed anywhere. Fig. 5 shows two solar panels from a solar farm in New Jersey. The bare ground between the panels can cause increased runoff rates and reductions in time of concentration, both of which could necessitate storm -water management. The final condition modeled involved the assumption of healthy grass beneath the panels and bare ground in the spacer section, which would simulate the con- dition of unmaintained grass resulting from vehicles that drive over the spacer section. Because the spacer section is 53% of the cell, the change in land cover to bare ground would reduce losses and de- crease runoff travel times, which would cause runoff to amass as it Fig. 5. Site showing the initiation of bare ground below the panels, which increases the potential for erosion (photo by John Showler, reprinted with permission) JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 539 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Downloaded from ascelibrary. org by Eli Johnson on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. moves downgradient. With the spacer section as bare ground, the peak discharge increased by 100%, which reflected the increases in volume and decrease in timing. These results illustrate the need for maintenance of the grass below and between the panels. Design Suggestions With well -maintained grass underneath the panels, the solar panels themselves do not have much effect on total volumes of the runoff or peak discharge rates. Although the panels are impervious, the rainwater that drains from the panels appears as runoff over the downgradient cells. Some of the runoff infiltrates. If the grass cover of a solar farm is not maintained, it can deteriorate either because of a lack of sunlight or maintenance vehicle traffic. In this case, the runoff characteristics can change significantly with both runoff rates and volumes increasing by significant amounts. In addition, if gravel or pavement is placed underneath the panels, this can also contribute to a significant increase in the hydrologic response. If bare ground is foreseen to be a problem or gravel is to be placed under the panels to prevent erosion, it is necessary to counteract the excess runoff using some form of storm -water man- agement. A simple practice that can be implemented is a buffer strip (Dabney et al. 2006) at the downgradient end of the solar farm. The buffer strip length must be sufficient to return the runoff character- istics with the panels to those of runoff experienced before the gravel and panels were installed. Alternatively, a detention basin can be installed. A buffer strip was modeled along with the panels. For approxi- mately every 200 m of panels, or 29 cells, the buffer must be 5 cells long (or 35 m) to reduce the runoff volume to that which occurred before the panels were added. Even if a gravel base is not placed under the panels, the inclusion of a buffer strip may be a good prac- tice when grass maintenance is not a top funding priority. Fig. 6 shows the peak discharge from the graveled surface versus the length of the buffer needed to keep the discharge to prepaneled peak rate. Water draining from a solar panel can increase the potential for erosion of the spacer section. If the spacer section is bare ground, the high kinetic energy of water draining from the panel can cause soil detachment and transport (Garde and Raju 1977; Beuselinck et al. 2002). The amount and risk of erosion was modeled using the velocity of water coming off a solar panel compared with the velocity and intensity of the rainwater. The velocity of panel 0.07 0.06 0.05 M 0.04 0 11 0.03 o_ 0.02 0.01 5 10 15 20 25 Length of buffer (m) Pre -paneled peak Q Peak Q vs. buffer length - 30 35 40 Fig. 6. Peak discharge over gravel compared with buffer length runoff was calculated using Manning's equation, and the velocity of falling rainwater was calculated using the following: Vt = 120 d).35 (1) where d,. = diameter of a raindrop, assumed to be 1 mm. The re- lationship between kinetic energy and rainfall intensity is Ke = 916 + 3301og10 i (2) where i = rainfall intensity (in./h) and Ke = kinetic energy (ft -tons per ac -in. of rain) of rain falling onto the wet section and the panel, as well as the water flowing off of the end of the panel (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). The kinetic energy (Salles et al. 2002) of the rain- fall was greater than that coming off the panel, but the area under the panel (i.e., the product of the length, width, and cosine of the panel angle) is greater than the area under the edge of the panel where the water drains from the panel onto the ground. Thus, dividing the kinetic energy by the respective areas gives a more accurate representation of the kinetic energy experienced by the soil. The energy of the water draining from the panel onto the ground can be nearly 10 times greater than the rain itself falling onto the ground area. If the solar panel runoff falls onto an un- sealed soil, considerable detachment can result (Motha et al. 2004). Thus, because of the increased kinetic energy, it is pos- sible that the soil is much more prone to erosion with the panels than without. Where panels are installed, methods of erosion control should be included in the design. Conclusions Solar farms are the energy generators of the future; thus, it is im- portant to determine the environmental and hydrologic effects of these farms, both existing and proposed. A model was created to simulate storm -water runoff over a land surface without panels and then with solar panels added. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted including changing the storm duration and volume, soil type, ground slope, panel angle, and ground cover to determine the effect that each of these factors would have on the volumes and peak discharge rates of the runoff. The addition of solar panels over a grassy field does not have much of an effect on the volume of runoff, the peak discharge, nor the time to peak. With each analysis, the runoff volume increased slightly but not enough to require storm -water management facili- ties. However, when the land -cover type was changed under the panels, the hydrologic response changed significantly. When gravel or pavement was placed under the panels, with the spacer section left as patchy grass or bare ground, the volume of the runoff in- creased significantly and the peak discharge increased by approx- imately 100%. This was also the result when the entire cell was assumed to be bare ground. The potential for erosion of the soil at the base of the solar pan- els was also studied. It was determined that the kinetic energy of the water draining from the solar panel could be as much as 10 times greater than that of rainfall. Thus, because the energy of the water draining from the panels is much higher, it is very possible that soil below the base of the solar panel could erode owing to the concen- trated flow of water off the panel, especially if there is bare ground in the spacer section of the cell. If necessary, erosion control meth- ods should be used. Bare ground beneath the panels and in the spacer section is a realistic possibility (see Figs. 1 and 5). Thus, a good, well - maintained grass cover beneath the panels and in the spacer section is highly recommended. If gravel, pavement, or bare ground is 540 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Downloaded from ascelibrary. org by Eli Johnson on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. deemed unavoidable below the panels or in the spacer section, it may necessary to add a buffer section to control the excess runoff volume and ensure adequate losses. If these simple measures are taken, solar farms will not have an adverse hydrologic impact from excess runoff or contribute eroded soil particles to receiving streams and waterways. Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the photographs (Figs. 1 and 5) of Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, 1001 Route 202, North Raritan, New Jersey, 08869, provided by John E. Showler, Environmental Scientist, New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The extensive comments of reviewers resulted in an improved paper. References Bedient, P. B., and Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology and,floodplain analy- sis, Prentice -Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Hairsince, P. B., Sander, G. C., and Breynaert, M. (2002). "The influence of rainfall on sediment transport by overland flow over areas of net deposition." J. Hydrol., 257(1-4), 145-163. Dabney, S. M., Moore, M. T., and Locke, M. A. (2006). "Integrated man- agement of in -field, edge -of -field, and after -field buffers." J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc., 42(1), 15-24. Engman, E. T. (1986). "Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff." J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 112(1), 39-53. Garde, R. J., and Raju, K. G. (1977). Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problems, Wiley, New York. McCuen, R. H. (2005). Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd Ed., Pearson/ Prentice -Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Motha, J. A., Wallbrink, P. J., Hairsine, P. B., and Grayson, R. B. (2004). "Unsealed roads as suspended sediment sources in agricultural catch- ment in south-eastern Australia." J. Hydrol., 286(1-4), 1-18. Salles, C., Poesen, J., and Sempere-Torres, D. (2002). "Kinetic energy of rain and its functional relationship with intensity." J. Hydrol., 257(1-4), 256-270. Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation planning, USDA Handbook 537, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 541 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Draina e Re • ort Checklist Project Name: The purpose of this checklist is to assist the applicant's Engineer with developing a drainage report that supports the intent of the Weld County Code using commonly accepted engineering practices and methodologies. Is the project in the MS4? Yes IA No If yes, the following requirements in blue apply. See Chapter 8, Article IX of the Weld County Code. Report Content Weld County Case Number I%4 Certificate of Compliance signed and stamped by a Colorado Licensed PE tit Description/Scope of Work Ni Location (County Roads, S -T -R) 2 Nearby water features and ownership fit Ivi Total acres vs. developed acres Hydrological soil types/maps FEMA Flood Zones kit Urbanizing or non -urbanizing Ivt Methodologies used for report & analysis (full spectrum is not accepted) Base Design Standard used for permanent control measure design in the MS4 Discussion of offsite drainage routing Conclusion statement indicating that the design will adequately protect public health, safety, and general welfare and have no adverse impacts on public rights -of -way or offsite properties Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis Design Storm / Rainfall Information (NOAA Atlas or Local Data) I\4 Release Rate calculations kit Post construction site imperviousness Hydrologic calculations (historic & developed basins) Hydraulic calculations for proposed drainage improvements (swales, culverts, riprap, pond, outlet, spillway, WQCV outlet, etc.) Detention/WQCV calculations 1.4 Comments: Construction Drawings Stamped by PE •/r Engineering scale & north arrow Property lines, rights -of -way, and easements IA 1' Contours & elevations (existing & proposed) I%4 Pre- and post -development drainage basins Ivt Arrows depicting flow direction V Time of concentration critical path 1.4 Drainage design points Improvements labeled Permanent control measure and associated drainage features labeled 'No Build/No Storage', include design volume Cross sections for open channels, profiles for pipes Elevations for inverts, flow lines, top of grates, orifice(s), etc. Pipe specs (size, material, length, slope) Outlet and spillway details Maintenance Plan Frequency of onsite inspections Repairs, if needed Cleaning of sediment and debris Vegetation maintenance Manufacturer maintenance specifications, if applicable Other Required Documents (If Applicable) Variance Request and documentation— explain hardship, applicable code section, and proposed mitigation. Variances will not be granted for the Base Design Standard requirement in the MS4. Department of Planning Services I Development Review 1402 North 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 806311 Ph: 970-400-6100 www.weld.gov/Government/Departments/Planning-and-Zoning/Development-Review/Drainage 8/14/2019 Pivot %4k Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Dust Mitigation Plan Stormwater best management practices will be followed to mitigate dust and debris during the construction process. Construction staff are responsible for dust control and will determine which of the following methods are needed to accommodate the specific site and weather conditions: • Sprinkling/irrigation- Sprinkle ground surface with water to moisten the area and control dust. Extra watering may be considered for haul roads and other traffic routes. • Vegetative cover- Vegetative cover may be used in areas where construction staff do not designate for vehicle traffic. Vegetative cover can help reduce wind velocity at the ground surface, therefore reducing dust accumulation. • Mulch- The use of mulch may be used as a useful dust control method for a recently disturbed area. • Wind breaks- Wind break barriers might be used to reduce the intensity of the wind throughout the site. • Stone- Stone may be used atop portions of the site to reduce the amount of dust that will be kicked up into the air. pivotenergy.net National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette FEMA Legend 104°45'57"W 40°40'13"N 104°45'20"W 40°39'46"N WELD:COUNTY 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 fi8F4 P166W Si0 1 23'201 ieff. 1/20/2016 Feet 2,000 1:6,000 SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V. A99 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AN, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Effective LOM Rs Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer milli Levee, Dike, or Floodwall 20.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 1765 Water Surface Elevation 8 - - - - Coastal Transect .� ,1 n Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary - - - - Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 10/18/2023 at 1:49 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Basemap imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 HEAT ISLAND IMPACT REPORT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Study on Heat Island Effect of a Proposed Solar Project Prepared For: PIVOT ENERGY INC. 1601 Wewatta St., Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 Submitted By: Lei Zhao Assistant Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Illinois Urbana -Champaign May 14th 2024 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pivot Energy Inc. is proposing a 5MW AC community solar project — Bureau Solar 2 LLC (hereafter the "Project") that will occupy approximately 29.3 acres of farmland in the Bureau County (site plan attached below as Fig. 1). The Project will consist of arrays of solar photovoltaic (PV) panel and farm hay and/or alfalfa between the arrays, as well as plant corn outside the project fence in the remaining 10 acres of the parcels. As an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana -Champaign, I (Lei Zhao, Ph.D.) have been invited to provide an objective, in-depth assessment on whether the proposed project will result in any significant heat island (i.e., localized increase in near -surface air temperature) effect. This abbreviated report summarizes the analysis and assessment results based on literature review of peer -reviewed scientific papers published in top -ranked journals (including my own research laboratory's work) and some initial quantitative estimates (see Methodology below). This assessment report can be included by the Pivot Energy Inc. for submission in their application for entitlement for the Project development. I have conducted a thorough literature review on the climatic effects of solar PV/solar farm implementation across scales. Both the state-of-the-art studies and my own analyses have shown that implementation of community- or local -scale solar farm (i.e., arrays of solar PV panels) is highly unlikely to cause any local warming (i.e., heat island) effect. Many studies including my own groups' have shown that the development of a solar farm could actually have a slight local cooling effect due to its biophysical effect on the land -atmosphere interactions. This is particularly the case when the electricity generated by the solar farm is not largely consumed on site, which applies to this proposed Project. In addition, this Project also proposes to farm hay grass or alfalfa between the arrays and grow corn right outside the project fence in the parcels. This will further enhance the local cooling effect due to the potential increase evapotranspiration from the grass and corn field. In summary, I conclude that the proposed Project is highly unlikely to cause any discernible heat island (i.e., increased local air temperature) effect. 1:ITE NOTES i. IHERE. Will DE 2417 UNESCORTED ACCESS TO WREN EQUIPMENT - 2. PRIMARY METER WILL BE 5 TO 25 FEET FROM ACCESS POINT S. CUSTOMER WILL COORDINATE WITH AMEREN WITHTECHNICALSCETAILMID LOCATION OF PRIMARY METER 4. CLGTOMER OWNED POLES WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 30' FROM SOLAR MOOULES 3 ALL POLES YRLL EE 23' MARI i - 0 y.. - _ _ •'- ',- fl I I I, M $ 6 -. 1 Rj.E nMlt{iPD EQVI•EHT 16• WIOE GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD OFF COUNTY ROAD 2200 N j I •RI A -Ka -r— • cwTdcv rPakat a2. cunTOfan 14LL9oc -CLOT1 POLE ii miff GENERATOR OPSONNECT ■■7 Or • P0RIT OF COEION RMRY0 IFOC° • UT41TY POLE 12: MISR/ METER •Unrc• POLE II mutt RECLOSER SOFT SETBACK FROM ROW -. _ _ 25FT PITCH _ - COUNTY ROAD 2206 N ice I POI. MV INTERCO?RIEC TIOH SATELLITE VIEW L�, ,i (41.464B3I.-54A66I4T) 2.640 FT FROM ARRAY tic -/ —• • - EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE - P01. MV INTERCONNECTION LENGTH 45OFT W' P' p . SOYY PROPERTY SETBACK I' 4.I PROJECT FENCE 8' CHAIN I I _ I flfl J K g i KL. LINK OR GAME FENCE 1 _i 11111 - q PARCEL BOUNDARY Lan'm=n Ea1JIP1•IF,NT Pa$$ BUREAU SOLAR 2 LLC 4L4ee1. 44DOCI ) PRINCETON, IL RIM 1""� Pivot n&a ��-,�.O«PROXC, ID -co-A Energy mai_ 1q flD 00t on*,, 6 SOOM'U.. SCUM W FAXICCt PLAN •i04 waist. Nut ex RERAN No NM Ot1G 70t4.0SI0 NWfl )IDtCKC.$t' .(40) INVERTERS • (2)CUSTOMER-OWNED PRODUCTION METER 2.•••••• /--1.5 MILE FROM ARRAY 20FT FENCE CLEARANCE •(2) AC OISCC.MNECT • (2) AC SWITCHBOARD •(2) DAS 8 WEATHER STATION •(2) PAD MOUNTED CUSTOMER OWNED STEP-UP XFMR (2500nvA) VICINITY MAP (L 2, SYS1EM SPECIFICATIONS I E- f i520 a aPEAK DUO XL-G11.3/01G 510W nt - 400 Cis SCHI1SKTL-00/08-600 IZS•W. MOUNTING SYSTEM IBOIT BUILDING SETBACK. TYP 6 - All IMRA !RACK SINGLE -AXIS TRACKER SYSTEM SIZE ' I ' - 668100O1x 5WOKWAE FENCED AREA L.2 SITE PLAN 29.3 Awn SITE PLAN 4` NOTES 8 SPECIE IC.A'i ION!, L1 Fig. 1 Site plan of the proposed Bureau Solar 2 LLC project 2 METHODOLOGY The assessment methodology consists of two main analysis approaches. 1. Literature review. I have conducted a thorough literature review on recent published scientific papers on studying the climatic impacts of implementing solar PV panels across scales, and performed comparative and meta- analyses. 2. Quantitative estimation. My research group has developed a physics -based analytic method that can quantitatively estimate the temperature effects caused by various biophysical changes to the land surface'. The method has been published in top scientific journals: Nature2'4, Nature Geoscience5, and Nature Communications3, and has been widely used in various climate impacts applications. This analytic method is based on urban surface energy balance principles, and attributes the temperature change (ST) to contributions from changes in surface biophysical parameters including albedo, evaporation, convection efficiency, heat storage and anthropogenic heat addition (Equation 1). ST = Af (L\a)K1 + �1 Af�a (Rn* - Qs + QAH)(L\f2) (1) 1+ with, Rn 1—a)Ki+Li—(1— aril —E6Ta f = (1 + —) ra n R D f2 = ra (�2) where T — surface temperature, A0 — local climate sensitivity (= 1/4aaT 3), f — energy redistribution factor, Rn — apparent net radiation, p — air density, Cp — specific heat of air at constant pressure, ra — aerodynamic resistance to heat diffusion, /3 — Bowen ratio, a — surface albedo, Ki, — incoming solar radiation, L1 — incoming longwave radiation, QS — stored heat, QAH - anthropogenic heat release, E - surface emissivity, a — Stefan - Boltzmann constant, Ta — air temperature at the blending height. This analytic model, together with the Project specs given by Pivot Energy Inc., are used to estimate is local temperature change (i.e., heat island) effect. RESULTS 1. Literature review: effect of solar photovoltaics (PV) on the urban environment Renewable energy installations in urban areas offer low to zero carbon emissions, offset capital -intensive investments for network upgrade, and impart local energy independence and network security'. These installations modify urban surface properties and affect the urban environment through changes in urban energy balance. Solar PVs in urban areas can perturb urban air temperatures and impact building heating and cooling energy demand. Solar PV converts part of the incident solar radiation to electricity that would otherwise be absorbed by the urban environment, lowering the urban air temperature and 3 the cooling load of buildings, curbing the need for air-conditioning. In addition, the generated electricity, when consumed on -site, can replace non-renewable energy imports that would lead to additional waste heat being released, hence further cooling the urban environment. Local -scale modeling studies that dynamically simulate the interactions between solar PVs and the urban environment report 0.1 to 1°C of cooling in urban air temperature. Berardi and Graham (2020)8 simulated rooftop solar PVs using the ENVI-met model over a neighborhood in Brampton, Ontario consisting of mainly two-story detached homes. They found around 0.1°C reduction air temperature during a heat wave day when all building roofs are covered with PV. Taha (2013)9 uses mesoscale and meso-urban meteorological models to evaluate the effect of solar PVs on urban air temperature in Los Angeles, California, and found a cooling effect of 0.15 to 0.20°C. Salamanca et al. (2016)10 used the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model coupled to the multilayer building energy (BEP+BEM) system to characterize the effect of solar roof on 2-m air temperature and citywide air-conditioning electricity consumption in Arizona. When all roofs are covered with rooftop solar panels, they found a temperature reduction of 0.2 — 0.4°C during the daytime and 0.4 — 0.8 °C during the nighttime (Fig. 2). Ma et al. (2017)11 that also used the WRF model found a daily maximum temperature reduction of up to 1°C in the city center, and 0.4 — 0.8 °C in surrounding areas in Sydney, Australia, when all building roofs are replaced with solar roofs. (a) 34.20 33.90 w - % 33.60 o a 33.30 TT F� 1 J 33.00 z 32.70 34.20 (c) w F- act a a t 1 33.90 ei 33.60 - 33.30 - Phoenix • • . • . 17 . • • Cao, aca• ♦ •* ••! ▪ • •tin • • • ai • . ••. N S T ••• O ,. kW,.. 4 ..►L O2. W 0. i . . • - •40.1 • .Zr • . • • . • • • I I t -112.8 -112.4 -112.0 -111.6 Longitude (°) Tucson 32.60 32.40 32.20 V J 32.00 31.80 31.60 -111.6 -111.4 -111.2 -111.0 -110.8 -110.6 Longitude in (14 111 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 - 0.4 -0.6 -0.8 (d) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 - 0.4 - 0.6 - 0.8 4 Fig. 2 Modeled mean 2-m air temperature differences between all solar roofs and control (original roofs) averaged for the entire 10 -day extreme heat period in July 2009 during nighttime hours (a, b) and during daytime hours (c, d) for Phoenix (left) and Tucson (right) regions, respectively. Urban land use is bounded by black contours. Adapted from Salamanca et al. (2016), Fig. 3. A global -scale study Hu et al. (2016)12 used the Community Earth System Model to investigate the local, regional, and global climate effects of large-scale implementation of solar PV, including both rooftop solar panels and solar farm. This study also finds a slight cooling effect E, 0.34K on average) resulted from the solar PV implementation at broader scales (Fig. 3). a Control 255 265 275 285 Temperature b 288.23 K 295 305 SPDU-Control -1.0 -0.5 -0.1 0.1 0.5 Fig. 3 Surface temperature. a, Surface temperature in the Control experiment. b, Surface temperature anomaly relative to the Control experiment in the solar PV experiment. The numbers at the upper right corner of each panel represent the global average. Stippling indicates the changes are statistically significant at the 95% level using a double -sided Student's t -test. Adapted from Hu et al. (2016), Fig. 1. 2. Quantitative estimate The presence of a solar panel converts a portion of the solar radiation into electricity. In another word, part of the solar radiation that originally heats up the land surface is now turned into electricity that will be used elsewhere. Therefore, conversion of an original land surface to solar PV would cool the near -surface airs°,12. This biophysical effect of solar PV is essentially like as an "albedo" effect in the surface energy balance (Equation 1). Based on the average solar PV parameters of the proposed Project, we can use Equation 1 to estimate its temperature effect. The solar PV panel used in the Project has an average albedo of 0.10 and an average electricity conversion efficiency of 25%, giving a heat removal rate equivalent to having a surface albedo of 0.33. Based on Equation 1, we estimate that the solar PV will slightly lower the near -surface temperature by an average amount of 0.3 °C K in the daytime and ' 0.1 °C in the nighttime. In addition to this "albedo" effect, the Project also propose to farm hay or alfalfa grass -034 K 1.0 5 between the arrays and grow corn outside the project fence in the remaining 10 acres of the parcels. The vegetated (grass and corn) land cover of the project site will further increase the evapotranspiration, thus leading to additional cooling effect. Using the analytic model (Equation 1), we estimate this evapotranspirative cooling effect would be 0.1 - 0.2 °C in the daytime and nearly 0 °C. Putting the two effects together, we estimate that the proposed Project would only slightly lower the near -surface air temperature by an average amount of 0.4 °C in the daytime and 0.1 °C in the nighttime. CONCLUSION Based on the literature review and initial quantitative analysis using our analytic model and the Project specs, we can conclude that the proposed Project by Pivot Energy Inc. in the Bureau County will not result in, if any, a discernible local warming (i.e., heat island) effect. The Project might actually have a slight cooling benefit which comes from a combined effect of solar PV's conversion of solar heat into electricity and the enhanced evapotranspirative cooling from the vegetated fraction. These findings are consistent with the published literature. 6A km Lei Zhao, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) The Grainger College of Engineering Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment (iSEE) National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign 6 PREPARER Dr. Lei Zhao is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment (iSEE), and the National Center of Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois Urbana -Champaign (UIUC). His research concerns the physical and engineering processes in the atmospheric boundary layer where most human activities and environmental systems are concentrated, with a particular focus on built surfaces and urban environments. He combines theory, numerical modeling, remote sensing and in situ observations, and cutting -edge machine learning methods to study land - atmosphere interaction and environmental fluid mechanics that relate to urban climatology and hydrology, urban climate change, impacts, and adaptation. Dr. Zhao is the recipient of the U.S. NSF CAREER Award, the Timothy Oke Award (2023) from the International Association for Urban Climate, and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Global Environmental Change Early Career Award (2023). He received his Ph.D. degree in atmospheric physics from Yale University and B.S. degree from Nanjing University. Before joining at UIUC, he worked as a postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University. Website: https://cee.illinois.edu/directory/profileileizhao Reference: 1. Zhao, L., Lee, X. & Schultz, N. M. A wedge strategy for mitigation of urban warming in future climate scenarios. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 17, 9067-9080 (2017). 2. Zhao, L., Lee, X., Smith, R. B. & Oleson, K. Strong contributions of local background climate to urban heat islands. Nature 511, 216-219 (2014). 3. Cao, C. et al. Urban heat islands in China enhanced by haze pollution. Nat. Commun. 7, 12509 (2016). 4. Zhang, K. et al. Increased heat risk in wet climate induced by urban humid heat. Nature 1-5 (2023) doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05911-1. 5. Wang, W. et al. Global lake evaporation accelerated by changes in surface energy allocation in a warmer climate. Nat. Geosci. 11, 410-414 (2018). 6. Kammen, D. M. & Sunter, D. A. City -integrated renewable energy for urban sustainability. Science 352, 922-928 (2016). 7. Sailor, D. J., Anand, J. & King, R. R. Photovoltaics in the built environment: A critical review. Energy Build. 253, 111479 (2021). 8. Berardi, U. & Graham, J. Investigation of the impacts of microclimate on PV energy efficiency and outdoor thermal comfort. Sustain. Cities Soc. 62, 102402 (2020). 9. Taha, H. The potential for air -temperature impact from large-scale deployment of solar photovoltaic arrays in urban areas. Sol. Energy 91, 358-367 (2013). 7 10. Salamanca, F., Georgescu, M., Mahalov, A., Moustaoui, M. & Martilli, A. Citywide Impacts of Cool Roof and Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic Deployment on Near -Surface Air Temperature and Cooling Energy Demand. Bound. -Layer Meteorol. 161, 203-221 (2016). 11. Ma, S. et al. The impact of an urban canopy and anthropogenic heat fluxes on Sydney's climate. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 255-270 (2017). 12. Hu, A. et al. Impact of solar panels on global climate. Nat. aim. Change 6, 290-294 (2016). 8 in Pivot Energy Pivot Energy Inc. - Landscape and Screening Plan Pivot Solar 65 LLC and Chad Smith Phase 2, c/o Pivot Energy Inc. is being constructed to the southeast of the intersection of Weld County Road 94 and Highway 85, just west of Weld County Road 33. The site is approximately 50 acres. Other nearby uses include dryland, center pivot, and flood irrigation agriculture, as well as oil and gas operations. Solar facilities present a low profile, especially when compared to other operational energy and commercial facilities already present near the property. As such, these installations generate very little visual impact to neighboring properties and typically require little in the way of visual buffering. The main strategy employed to lessen the visual impact of the proposed installation is to site the facility at the greatest feasible distance from any residences on neighboring properties and from the right-of-way. The applicant intends to provide a 500 -foot buffer between the solar equipment and any neighboring residential parcels. If there are neighboring residences within a 500 -foot buffer, Pivot Energy Inc. will provide an option to decrease visual impacts, such as opaque fencing, landscaping features, or an agreed upon mitigation measure. The applicant proposes to surround the facility with a decorative, wildlife game fence which will serve to break up the visual impact of the facility when viewed from adjoining properties. Within the fence line, and on any other areas disturbed during construction, applicant will establish native, low -growth grasses in keeping with vegetation common for the area to allow the project area to blend in with the surroundings. pivotenergy.net Pivot %4k Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Maintenance and Vegetation Plan Site maintenance is critical to ensure that an operational solar facility meets all conditions of operation. This document outlines the steps the operator will take to ensure the site is properly maintained during construction and throughout the operational life of the facility. 1) Weed Management If construction occurs during growing season, Pivot will apply broadleaf herbicide prior to commencing construction. Once construction is complete, Pivot will re -apply broadleaf herbicide if needed to allow planted native grass seed mix to revegetate. Hydro -seed or hydro -mulch a drought tolerant native grass seed mix in the early spring or early fall. Final seed mix will be determined by an approved professional knowledgeable with re -vegetation means and methods. Mow project area a minimum of once per year, at a cut height of no less than six inches. It is possible that mowing may need to take place twice or more during the growing season or may be replaced via grazing livestock. Since weed seeds remain viable in the soil for number years, site and weed management is a long-term process. Treated areas will be monitored annually and re- treated if necessary, using typical weed management practices and procedures. 2) Planting Method Preferred method will be hydroseed and hydro -mulching. If required, nutrient supplementation will take place to ensure the successful establishment of permanent ground cover. Permanent seeding shall occur between December 1 and May 1 or between August 1 and September 1, or as recommended by a vegetation specialist. 3) Temporary Seed Mix Temporary seeding areas, which will be ready for stabilization after May 1 and before August 1, shall be seeded with Millet or Sorghum at the rate of 40 pounds per acre, with the amount of fertilizer as specified. The requirement to plant temporary seeding does not eliminate the requirement to plant permanent seeding. Straw mulch is not required for temporary seeding. 4) Permanent Seed Mix To consist of native, drought -tolerant, low growth grasses and flowering plants. If viable, preference will be given to a seed mix that can support pollinators. Final mix will be determined at the time of planting by a qualified vegetation specialist. 5) Site Maintenance Checklist a) Mow project area once per year at a minimum to a cut height of 6 inches or greater. pivotenergy.net Pivot %4k Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Maintenance and Vegetation Plan b) Walk the site and remove any accumulated debris on either side of the fence line and properly dispose. No burning of trash will be allowed. c) Apply herbicide as needed to control noxious weeds. d) Inspect and re -seed any bare ground with permanent seeding. e) Inspect fence and repair as needed. f) Inspect all-weather access road and repair as needed. g) Inspect site for any visible erosion. Remove transported sediment and implement necessary erosion control measures to minimize future maintenance issues. pivotenergy.net CORE May 10, 2024 Molly Wright Weld County Department of Planning Services 1402 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Construction Traffic Impact Memorandum PS65 Chad Smith Phases 1 and 2 Dear Molly Wright: In support of the proposed Solar Energy Facility, SEF, for PS 65 Chad Smith Phases 1 and 2, we are providing this Construction Traffic Impact Memorandum. PS 65 Chad Smith Phases 1 and 2, The Project, is bordered by County Road 94 to the North, County Road 33 to the East, adjacent residential property to the south and Union Pacific Railroad and US Highway 85 to the West. The Project consists of the construction of approximately 8MWAC of photovoltaic panels between the two phases of the facility. CORE anticipates minimal construction traffic impacts to the site and surrounding area. Construction of the facility is not expected to require major earthwork operations and therefore will require very minimal hauling of earthwork to the site. Access to The Project is provided at the north side on County Road 94, which connects to US 85 along an approximately 0.3 -mile haul route as shown on the attached exhibit. Construction of The Project is anticipated to take approximately 9 months, generally split into three phases, Site Preparation, Material and Equipment Delivery, and Installation. Site preparation is anticipated to take between one and three weeks with minimal anticipated daily traffic of passenger vehicles, equipment hauling trucks and fuel delivery vehicles. Material and Equipment Delivery is anticipated to take approximately four to five weeks, with moderate daily traffic consisting of Conex Container and delivery trucks as well as other equipment hauling trucks. Solar facility installation is anticipated to take approximately six to seven months with moderate passenger vehicle traffic and minimal fuel and material delivery truck traffic occurring on a daily basis. Ongoing operations and maintenance are generally handled remotely with infrequent trips on a monthly basis typically required by a utility vehicle. Decomissioning is generally anticipated to follow a similar schedule and traffic demand as construction. The final condition of the proposed SEF would have a minimal effect on the number of vehicular trips on the adjacent roadways that are currently being generated to and from The Project. Page 1 of 2 3473 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80113 303.703.4444 LIVEYOURCORE.COM Construction Traffic Impact Memo May 8, 2024 PS 65 Chad Smith Phase 1 and 2 SEF Sincerely, CORE Consultants, Inc. io„) Todd Wolma, PE Project Manager oaeorytaxs Attachments Haul Route Map Estimated Construction Traffic Page 2 of 2 3473 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80113 303.703.4444 LIVEYOURCORE.COM PS65 Chad Smith Phases 1 and 2 - Estimated Construction Traffic Project Period) Phase (Time Vehicle Type Estimate Vehicle Gross Weight Vehicles Number of Per Day Maximum Vehicle and Trips Average Per Day (Approx Site Preparation 1 - 3 weeks) Equipment Trucks Hauling 15 to 33 Tons 0-3 0-6 P Passenger Vehices 1 to 5 Tons , 3-8 6-16 Fuel Delivery 10 to 15 Tons 1 2 Max-24/Avg-17 (Approx. Equipment Material 4 - and Delivery 5 weeks) Cone): and Delivery Container Trucks 15 to 25 Tons 16-48 32-96 Equipment Trucks Hauling 10 to 20 Tons 0-12 0-24 Max-120/Avg-76 Solar Installation Months) Facility (6-7 Passenger Vehicles 1_ to 5 Tons 32-48 64-96 Fuel Truck 10 to 15 Tons 1 2 Material Truck Delivery 1.0 to 1.5 Tons 1 2 Max-100/Avg-80 Operations Construction) (Post Utility Vehicle 1 to 5 Tons 1 Per Month 4 Max-2/Avg-0 Xcel Energy RESPONSIBLE BY N AT U B E"' 10/13/2023 Colorado Distributed Energy Resources Interconnection Process Level 2 Review Results *Confidential - Customer: Pivot Chad Smith Phase 1 Case # 5586819 *Confidential* - Address: 40.666458, -104.760698, PIERCE, CO 80650 DER Application Size: 5,000.00 kVA Interconnection Feeder: AULT1002 DER Active on Feeder: kW DER in Queue on Feeder: kW Substation: Ault DER Active on Substation: DER in Queue on Substation: 4,116.99 kW 12,972.27 kW Confidentiality: As described in CCR Section 3853 (k), confidential information shall mean any confidential and/or proprietary information provided by one Party to the other Party that is clearly marked or otherwise designated "Confidential." Each Party receiving Confidential Information shall hold such information in confidence and shall not disclose it to any third party nor to the public without the prior written authorizaion from the Party providing that information. Xcel Energy's internal policy categorizes Confidential Information as including information where unauthorized disclosure has the potential to cause a negative impact to the grid, the Company, and/or its customers. The information marked as "Confidential" in this report is non-public information that Xcel Energy has protected to reduce the potential security risks to the grid and our customers. Summary of Results: This project does not qualify for either the Level 1 or Level 2 Fast Track Process and will need to proceed to the Level 3 Study Process. Ground Referencing Adequacy Based on the project size and system configuration, the ground referencing equipment specifications appear to be adequate for installation with this interconnection. Should the size or configuration of this project change at any point in time, this determination will no longer be valid. It is the customer's responsibility to ensure that the ground referencing equipment specifications are reviewed and in compliance with Xcel Energy's Ground Reference Requirements. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,111111111• p. 1/6 Level 2 Process Eligibility CCR Section 3855 (a)(II) CCR Section 3855 (b)(I) (b)(II) To qualify for the Fast Track Review Process: For certified inverter -based systems, the size limit of the interconnection resource varies according to the voltage of the utility line at the proposed point of interconnection. Certified inverter -based interconnection resource facilities located within 2.5 electrical circuit miles of a substation and on a mainline are eligible for the Level 2 Process under the higher thresholds pursuant to this rule 3856. Level 2 Eligibility for Inverter -Based Systems Line Voltage Eligibility Regardless of Location Eligibility Requirements and Meeting Substation) (Mainline Location < 5 kV ≤ 500 kW ≤ 500 kW ≥5kVand<15kV ≤2MW ≤3MW ≥15 kV and<30kV ≤3MW ≤4MW ≥30 kV and ≤69 kV ≤4MW ≤5MW Generating facility is UL 1741 certified? Point of Interconnection is a Mainline Feeder? DER Size: Line Voltage: Distance from Substation: Eligible for Fast Track Review? Level 2 Review Screens Yes N/A 5,000.00 12.47 7.62 No kW kV mi The proposed interconnection resource's point of interconnection must be on a portion of the utility's distribution system that is subject to the tariff. Passes Screen? Yes For interconnection of proposed interconnection resources to a radial distribution circuit, the aggregated generation, including the proposed interconnection resources, on the line section(s) shall not exceed 15 percent of the line section's annual peak load as most recently measured at the substation or calculated for the line section(s). A line section is that portion of a utility's electric system connected to a customer bounded by automatic sectionalizing devices or the end of the distribution line. A fuse is not an automatic sectionalizing device. Energy storage system(s) capacity for purposes of this screen shall be based on subparagraph 3853(c)(III). *CONFIDENTIAL* - 15% of Peak Load: Aggregate DER, including proposed DER: Passes Screen (Aggregate DER is less than 15% of Peak Load): 450 #VALUE! #ERROR kVA kW p. 2/6 (b)(III) (b)(IV) (b)(V) The proposed interconnection resource, in aggregation with other generation on the distribution circuit, shall not contribute more than ten percent to the distribution circuit's maximum fault current at the point on the distribution feeder voltage (primary) level nearest the proposed point of change of ownership. Distribution Circuit Maximum Fault Current nearest the PCC: Aggregate nameplate DER, including proposed DER, on feeder: Aggregate DER fault current contribution: Max Fault Current: Passes Screen? 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #ERROR Amps kVA Amps 0/0 The proposed interconnection resource, in aggregate with other interconnection resources on the distribution circuit, shall not cause any distribution protective devices and equipment (including, but not limited to, substation breakers, fuse cutouts, and line reclosers), or Interconnection Customer equipment on the system to exceed 87.5% of the short circuit interrupting capability; nor shall the interconnection be proposed for a circuit that already exceeds 87.5% of the short circuit interrupting capability. Assumed lowest shod circuit interrupting rating of equipment inline with DER: Aggregate DER fault current contribution: Distribution Circuit Maximum Fault Current nearest the PCC: Total available shod circuit current: Aggregate fault current contribution as a % of shod circuit interrupting rating: Passes Screen: 10,000 #VALUE! 0 #VALUE! #VALUE! #ERROR Amps Amps Amps Amps ok The proposed interconnection resource shall meet the rapid voltage charge and flicker requirements of IEEE Standard 1453 (2015) and IEEE Standard 1547 -SA, until January 1, 2022, at which time new DERs applying for interconnection will comply with IEEE 1547- 2018 based on the appropriate test. Passes Screen: The type of interconnection to a primary distribution line shall be determined based on the table below, including a review of the type of electrical service provided to the interconnection customer, line configuration, and the transformer connection to limit the potential for creating over -voltages on the utility's electric power system due to a loss of ground during the operating time of any anti- islanding function. Primary Distribution Line Type Type Primary of Interconnection Distribution Line to Result/Criteria Three -phase, three -wire 3 -phase p or single g phase phase, phase p -to - Pass screen Three-phase, four -wire Effectively Single-phase, Grounded line -to 3 -neutral phase or Pass screen Interconnection Type: Primary Distribution Line Type: Passes Screen: Refer to Ground Referencing Adequacy section of report. p. 3/6 (b)(VII) (b)(VIII) (b)(X) (b)(Xl) If the proposed interconnection resource is to be interconnected on single-phase shared secondary, the aggregate generation capacity on the shared secondary, including the proposed small generating facility, shall not exceed 25 kW. Energy storage system(s) capacity for purposes of this screen, shall be based on subparagraph 3853(c)(III). Aggregate DER on Shared Secondary: Passes Screen: N/A N/A Interconnection is not on a single-phase shared secondary. Screen does not apply. kW If the proposed interconnection resource is single-phase and is to be interconnected on a center tap neutral of a 240 volt service, its addition shall not create an imbalance between the two sides of the 240 volt service of more than 20 percent of the nameplate rating of the service transformer. Service transformer nameplate rating: DER Size: DER Size as a % of service transformer nameplate rating: Passes Screen: Interconnection is not interconnected to a tap neutral. Screen does not apply. N/A N/A N/A N/A kVA kW ok For interconnection of a proposed interconnection resource to the load side of spot network protectors serving more than a single customer, the proposed small generating facility must utilize an inverter -based equipment package and, together with the aggregated other inverter -based generation, shall not exceed the smaller of five percent of a spot network's maximum load or 300 kW. For spot networks serving a single customer, the small generator facility must use inverter - based equipment package and either meet the requirements above or shall use a protection scheme or operate the generator so as not to exceed on -site load or otherwise prevent nuisance operation of the spot network protectors. Interconnection on a Spot Network? DER is Inverter Based? Network Maximum load: Aggregate DER, including applied -for DER: Aggregate DER as °/0 of Network Maximum Load: Passes Screen: Interconnection is not on a Spot Network. Screen does not apply. No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A kW kW ok For interconnection of a proposed interconnection resource to the load side of area network protectors, the proposed interconnection resource must utilize an inverter -based equipment package and, together with the aggregated other inverter -based interconnection resource, shall not exceed the smaller of ten percent of an area network's minimum load or 500 kW AC. Interconnection on an Area Network? DER is Inverter Based? Network Minimum load: Aggregate DER, including applied -for DER: Aggregate DER as % of Network Minimum Load: Passes Screen: Interconnection is not on an Area Network. Screen does not apply. No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A kVA kW ok p. 4/6 (b)(IX) (b)(XII) N o construction of facilities by the utility on its own system shall be required to accommodate the small generating facility. Note: Additional construction of facilities may be identified through the S upplemental Review Process and are not addressed in this section. Additional construction of facilities may be required. The nameplate capacity of a proposed interconnection resource, in combination with the nameplate capacity of any previously interconnected interconnection resource, shall not exceed the capacity of the customer's existing electrical service unless there is a simultaneous request for an upgrade to the customer's electrical service, regardless of exporting or non -exporting designations for any of the Service Transformer Nameplate: Aggregate DER on Service Transformer: Aggregate DER Size as a % of Transformer Nameplate Rating: Does the service transformer require replacement as determined by this screen? Technical Planning Standard Similar to Xcel Energy's planning standards for load, aggregate front of the meter DER export capacity is allowed up to 75% percent (%) of the limiting equipment continuous rating, which could be at the substation transformer or feeder level. Xcel Energy will allow behind the meter DER export capacity an additional 25%, due to its association with load, so long as the total aggregate DER export capacity does not exceed 100% of the continuous rating. Due to the variability of load, minimum load is not included in this hosting capacity calculation. However, Xcel Energy will allow non -exporting DER if these thresholds are exceeded. Otherwise a detailed study would be required. *CONFIDENTIAL* - Aggregate Total DER as % of Feeder Rating: *CONFIDENTIAL* - Aggregate Total DER as % of Substation Transformer Rating: Technical Planning Standard Exceeded?: Other Construction of Facilities Construction of other facilities may be required to interconnect the DER. They are listed below. Is Voltage Supervisory Reclosing required? Are construction of other facilities by the utility, not including those identified in the Supplemental Review, required? Passes Screen: Description of facilities: C N o N o kVA kW ok p. 5/6 Ground Referencing Inverter -Based Systems 100 kW and greater require ground referencing. The adequacy of the provided ground referencing specifications are evaluated below. Requirement 1: Requirement 2: Requirement 3: Requirement 4: X0. DER As Specified: X0 DER= Requirement Met? X0 DER/RO, DER As Specified: X0 DER/Ro, DER Requirement Met? Neutral Current Rating for Vo = 4%= Neutral Current Rating, as specified= Requirement Met? Minimum required fault current withstand rating= As Specified= Requirement Met? 0.60 ± 10% 4.00 p.u. P11 - amps amps amps amps p. 6/6 ire 4 Pivot itmr Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Community Meeting 1. Community Meeting Details Pivot Energy held a community meeting at the Roma Pizza, located at 728 16th St, Greeley, CO, from 5-6:30 PM on Monday, February 26th, 2024. On 2/15/24, all neighbors within a half mile radius (shown in the map above) of the project boundary were sent a postcard inviting them to attend the community meeting and providing contact information at Pivot to provide feedback. Of the 40 or so neighbors invited to the meeting, only One (1) neighbor attended the meeting. In addition to the postcards, all direct abutters to the project were sent a USPS priority mail envelope containing the following: • A letter personally introducing the developer assigned to the project, Pivot Energy as a company, and Pivot's Solar Projects • Contact information for the developer • Solar Project frequently asked questions Copies of the postcard and letter are included with this application as documents 14a and 14b. pivotenergy.net ire 4 Pivot itmr Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Community Meeting 2. List of Neighbors and Community Members that Attended Meeting As mentioned, 1 community member showed up to Pivot Energy's community meeting at Roma Pizza on February 26th. Those in attendance are listed below in the copy of the "Local Solar Project Feedback" card. Your Name: Email: Local Solar Project Feedback Please provide your comments below. Meeting Notes The landowners, Chad and Carie Smith, were also in attendance at the meeting and had the chance to talk with Derek regarding his concerns. Pivot provided the following responses to Derek: • The topography of the Smith's land, along with the relatively low height of solar panels, should not largely obstruct Derek's, or any northern neighbors° view of the mountains. As these neighbors are located north of the project, their western mountain views will be unaffected, and as the panels are aligned in orderly north - south rows, they can see straight through (and over) them to other mountain views to the south and southwest. • Solar fields do not generate "heat islands", as Derek alluded to; rather, they can actually dissipate heat, as they absorb solar radiation to create electricity. Evidence supporting this can be found in document 14c, included with this application. • Regarding the railroad to the west of the project, Pivot will work with the county and any necessary jurisdictions to ensure the project does not materially impact the railroad and shall abide by all required regulations. Pivot also decreased the size of the overall systems and moved the solar footprint an additional 330 feet to the south, as a good faith effort to further mitigate visual impacts. There is now approximately a 380 -foot buffer on the north between the solar and the county road, which further assures that there will pivotenergy.net ire 4 Pivot itmr Energy Pivot Energy Inc. — Community Meeting be no impact on the viewshed of the railroad when driving West on C94. • Pivot discussed with Derek how there is no conclusive evidence regarding solar projects decreasing, or increasing, surrounding property values. There is a myriad of factors that go into property values, and thus far, research has shown no correlation with solar having an impact. Pivot has included a report, document 14d, with this application to support this. pivotenergy.net i'%. Pivot Energy Local Solar Projects are producing long-term revenue for the city and county, providing affordable energy, and investing in Weld County's agricultural industry. We Want to Hear From You! We're hosting a family -friendly open house for Greeley residents to learn more about upcoming solar projects. Please join us to learn more about local solar and agricultural initiatives, provide feedback, and enjoy some door prizes. One lucky winner will be gifted a Pivot Energy subscription, offsetting a portion of their monthly energy bill. Where: Roma Pizza Address: 72816th St, Greeley, CO 80631 When: 5:00 - 6:30 pm Date: Monday, February 26th, 2024 Call or Email us to RSVP 888.734.3033 ext. 726 communityfeedback@pivotenergy.net Local Solar, Local Benefits New small-scale solar projects that are co -located with agricultural practices are being proposed in the City of Greeley and Weld County. Solar is a clean, quiet neighbor that creates small local business partnerships with landowners, tenant farmers, and local shepherds. It brings ample local benefits, including investments in agricultural research, education, and workforce development, provides affordable energy and tax revenue. Join us at Roma Pizza on February 26th to learn more and provide your feedback. Call or Email us to RSVP c 888.7343033 ext. 726 M communityfeedback@pivotenergy.net fiA4 P• ivot � Energy Pivot Energy is a national renewable energy provider that develops, finances, builds, owns, and manages solar and energy storage projects. We are Colorado's largest community solar provider, with over 55 MW completed. Pivot Energy 11601 Wewatta St. Ste 700 I Denver, Co 80202 Certified Corporation THE ORUU1NNL IwMa pizza 1))10111 pivotenergy.net raj Pivot %4L Energy May 23, 2024 Anna & Kelly Berndt 16058 County Road 96 Nunn, CO 80648 RE: Newly Proposed Solar Project at 15864 County Road 94, Pierce, CO Dear Anna & Kelly Berndt: My name is Kyle Hockstad, and I work at Pivot Energy, a Colorado -based solar developer. We develop thoughtful small scale solar projects that blend in with the surrounding environment and bring economic benefit to the local area. I am working with your neighbors, Chad and Carie Smith, on their property at 15864 County Road 94, Pierce, CO to develop a 4.7 -megawatt (MW) solar project on 29 acres of land, that will provide enough emission -free power to serve approximately 1,200 local homes. I've attached a proximity map to the end of this letter for context. As an experienced developer in Colorado, I know how important it is to work with the local community throughout the process. We are committed to embedding your feedback into our project and look forward to getting to know you. My contact information is at the bottom of this letter — please reach out via email or phone if you have questions or concerns; I would be happy to discuss any details of the project and its benefits to the community. I want to assure you upfront that we will be a good and transparent neighbor, and after a short construction period (approximately 4-6 months) our project will create no noise, have no onsite employees, and generate no emissions or traffic in the area. In addition to generating clean energy locally, this project will benefit local taxpayers and the community by: • Reducing the energy bills of local households, hedging the impact of rising energy costs. • Providing workforce development opportunities to local residents. • Creating small business partnerships with local shepherds and tenant farmers to steward the land and to bolster the local economy. • Producing long-term revenue for the community with the tax dollars going towards schools, roads, and other community resources. • Helping landowners preserve and keep their land, control access, and determine the best use of their property, while being a quiet and respectful neighbor. • Establishing a community investment fund. We seek your input on how to provide funds to local community initiatives. Pivot pledges funds to loical organizations with the goal of alleviating energy burden for low-income households and supporting local workforce development. We are developing projects to support American energy independence, provide a low-cost energy alternative, and create new jobs and investment stemming from the growing clean energy economy. We appreciate your input and hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Kyle HockstacSenior Associate, Project Development khockstad@pivotenergy.net (970) 344-8350 x737 888.734.3033 I info@pivotenergy.net I pivotenergy.net raj Pivot %4L Energy Frequently Asked Questions • How will this project benefit my community? This project will help Weld County broaden its energy sources to increase resiliency, stabilize energy costs, and preserve the land for future generations. This project will power approximately 1,200 homes' energy bills. Subscribers to the project can expect to see meaningful reductions to their electric bill, putting more money in their pocket to reinvest in the local community. Over the project's 20 -40 -year ifespan, property taxes will be paid to the County to support schools, road building, and other necessary community projects. Additionally, a community benefits package will provide funding to local workforce development and other local initiatives important to the residents of Weld County. As critical stakeholders in this project, we would like to solicit input from the local community on which non -profits we should support. If there's a local organization you feel passionate about or would like to support, please submit your recommendations to communityfeedback@pivotenergy.net.We'd love to hear from you! • Who is Pivot Energy? Founded in 2009, Pivot Energy is a national renewable energy provider that develops, finances, builds, owns, and manages solar and energy storage projects. We have developed over 850 unique projects and have a long track record of delivering high quality projects to the communities we work with. Pivot is a Certified B -Corporation that proudly follows a corporate strategy aimed at providing a positive impact on society. For more information, please visit our website (www.pivotenerqy.net). • How much noise will the equipment produce? The inverters are the equipment that convert the energy produced by the solar panels (DC energy) into energy that can be connected into the existing electrical grid (AC energy). They make about the same amount of noise as a residential air conditioning unit - between roughly 50 and 60 decibels. The inverters are typically located towards the center of the solar array - this is hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of feet away from the nearest residence and cannot be heard. • Will the panels cause a glare or reflection? We use anti -reflective technology that is designed to absorb as much light (photons) as possible. In fact, absorption, not reflection, is a critical function of a solar PV module. The blue -black material of a solar cell is designed to absorb light, and each module is coated with shatter -resistant, anti -reflective glass. • Are there any bright lights used? No bright lights will be used during the construction or operation phases of the solar farm. For a project of this size, the bulk of the construction takes place within a 4 -6 -month period, and only during daylight hours. The solar facility only operates during daylight hours and has no lights associated with it. • Will the solar garden impact local wildlife habitats? All applicable agencies will review the required impact studies to verify that the proposed facility will not threaten endangered species or their habitats. Additionally, measures are in place to minimize any impact on the local wildlife. • How will this impact the local environment? We aim to improve the environment and leave the soil in an even better condition than its current state through responsible environmental management techniques and adherence to site management practices specified by Weld County. 888.734.3033 I info@pivotenergy.net I pivotenergy.net raj Pivot %4L Energy At a minimum, we will plant native plants/pollinator habitat as ground cover, and we default to agriculturally friendly vegetation management practices, such as animal grazing. This has the additional benefit of improving soil quality over time. The soil will be kept intact beneath the PV panels. The panelswil[ be installed on a low -profile racking system with no concrete footers. Once decommissioned and removed, the project leaves no trace, so the land is ready to be planted on again. Solar garden components are primarily inert (steel, aluminum, glass) and will not require extensive clean-up for any use once solar operations cease. All components will be recycled, repurposed, or removed from the property at the end of the project term. • How tall will the solar array be? The solar array will not exceed 15 feet tall at its highest point, and will likely be much shorter, depending on the site's topography. There will be a small weather sensor located, about 10' tall and the size of a football, located near the equipment pad. • How tall will the fence be? We will install an 8 -foot -tall game fence around the solar array to keep larger wildlife such as deer out of the project. This is consistent with National Electric Code requirements for this type of facility. • How long does construction take? The bulk of construction occurs within a 4 -6 -month period. • How often do you visit the site once it's operational? Typically, we visit the site between 4 and 8 times annually to perform routine electrical and mechanical testing, and vegetation management. We will use a standard pickup truck during these visits. • Will you grade the site? Due to solar's relatively simple construction, it is rarely n ecessary to grade sites, and we avoid grading whenever possible. We may clear some of the vegetation that's within the fenced area to facilitate installation. • Why did you choose this location for the solar array? Choosing the best site for solar is a complicated process! Several needs must be met to create a viable project: sites must be relatively flat, open, buildable, unshaded, and in the correct zoning district. They also must be in proximity to the right electrical infrastructure — we require electrical distribution lines with the right u sage level, in the right utility service territory, connected to the right substation, to have a viable connection to the grid. Our job is to find good landowner partners that own land where all of these n eeds can be met. • How does Pivot develop projects Holistically? We plan to be good community partners and commit to preserving the agricultural character of Weld County. To do so, Pivot will employ agricultural and holistic land management practices, using sheep grazing to maintain proper vegetation height, and planting native low -growth pollinator friendly plants under the solar panels. We will also use wildlife friendly fencing to allow small animals to come and go, and, when possible, add beekeeping to our sites and partner with local farmers to co -locate crop production u nder the panels. Pivot is also engaging in long-term research with local agricultural institutions to keep evolving our knowledge on how to improve soil health under the panels. 888.734.3033 l info@pivotenergy.net I pivotenergy.net FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Business Name: Address: Business Owner: Home Address: Pivot Energy Renewable Services 1601 Wewatta St #700 Pivot Energy 1601 Wewatta St #700 Phone: City, state, zip: Phone: City, state, zip: List up to three persons in the order to be called in the event of an emergency: NAME TITLE PHONE Angela Burke, Sr Manager, Project Engineering & Analysis, 989.412.4705 Denver, CO 80202 Denver, CO 80202 ADDRESS Business Hours: 9-5, Mountain Time Zone UTILITY SHUT OFF LOCATIONS: Main Electrical: Gas Shut Off: TBD Days: Monday -Friday TBD Exterior Water Shutoff: TBD Interior Water Shutoff: TBD 10/23/2023 Cohn ReznickG www.cohnreznick.com REAL ESTATE ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT REPORT: Academic and Peer Authored Property Value Impact Studies, Research and Analysis of Existing Solar Facilities, and Market Participant and Assessor Interviews P repared For: P ivot Energy Development, LLC Attn: Merril Read 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 S ubmitted By: CohnReznick LLP Valuation Advisory Services 1 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3550 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 508-5900 Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE Erin C. Bowen, MAI May 13, 2024 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 2 ..........................................................................................I LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL May 13, 2024 Pivot Energy Development, LLC Attn: Merril Read 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 SUBJECT: Property Value Impact Report An Analysis of Existing Solar Farms To Whom it May Concern: CohnReznick is pleased to submit the accompanying property values impact report for proposed solar energy uses in Illinois. Per the client's request, CohnReznick researched property transactions adjacent to existing solar farms, researched and analyzed articles and other published studies, and interviewed real estate professionals and Township/County Assessors active in the market where solar farms are located, to gain an understanding of actual market transactions in the presence of solar energy uses. The purpose of this consulting assignment is to determine whether proximity to a renewable energy use (solar farm) has an impact adjacent property values. The intended use of our opinions and conclusions is to assist the client in addressing local concerns and to provide information that local bodies are required to consider in their evaluation of solar project use applications. We have not been asked to value any specific property, and we have not done so. The client and intended user for the assignment is Pivot Energy Development, LLC. Additional intended users of our findings include the client's legal and site development professionals. The report may be used only for the aforementioned purpose and may not be distributed without the written consent of CohnReznick LLP ("CohnReznick"). This consulting assignment is intended to conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, as well as applicable state appraisal regulations. Based on the analysis in the accompanying report, and subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions expressed in the report, our findings are: Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ fir P^ ". 1 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ fir P^ "" 11 ■ . ■ ■ ■ . . . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ . 1 FINDINGS Academic Studies (pages 18-22): CohnReznick reviewed and analyzed published academic studies that specifically analyzed the impact of solar facilities on nearby property values. These studies include multiple regression analyses of hundreds and thousands of sales transactions, and opinion surveys, for both residential homes and farmland properties in rural communities, the majority of the data used in various studies indicates that there is no consistent and measurable impact to surrounding property values. We note that some of these studies do show a very small impact to certain homes, in certain locations, at certain distances, but these conclusions are not necessarily indicative of future projects in other locations. Peer Authored Studies: CohnReznick also reviewed studies prepared by other real estate valuation experts that specifically analyzed the impact of solar facilities on nearby property values. These studies found little to no measurable or consistent difference in value between the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales attributed to the proximity to existing solar farms and noted that solar energy uses are generally considered a compatible use. I. CohnReznick Studies (pages 23-108): Further, CohnReznick has performed studies in 21 states, of both residential and agricultural properties, in which we have determined that the existing solar facilities have not caused any consistent and measurable negative impact on property values. For this Project, we have included 10 of these studies which are most similar to the subject in terms of general location and size, summarized as follows: CohnReznick - Existing Solar Farms Studied Solar Power Site Area Farm # Solar Farm County State Output (MW (Acres))} 1 2662 Freeport Solar CSG Stephenson IL 2.00 18 2 Grand Ridge Solar LaSalle IL 20.00 158 3 Spring Mill Solar Lawrence IN 1.10 9 4 Jefferson County Solar Jefferson CO 1.20 13.63 5 DTE Lapeer LaPeer MI 48.28 ±365 6 Dominion Indy Solar III Marion IN 8.60 129 7 Sunfish Farm Wake NC 5.00 50 8 Portage Solar Porter IN 2.00 56 9 IMPA Frankton Solar Madison IN 1.40 13 10 Valparaiso Solar Porter IN 1.00 28 It is noted that proximity to the solar farms has not deterred sales of nearby agricultural land and residential single-family homes, nor has it deterred the development of new single-family homes on adjacent land. This report also includes four "Before and After" analyses, in which sales that occurred prior to the announcement and construction of the solar farm project were compared with sales that occurred Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 4 ................................... 7 MMnII•••••••••••••••••••••••••••I7"•P1I1•.•••••••.••••.•1 after completion of the solar farm project, for both adjoining and non -adjoining properties. No measurable impact on property values was demonstrated. III. Market Participant Commentary (pages 109-111): Our conclusions also consider interviews with over 75 County and Township Assessors, who have at least one solar farm in their jurisdiction, and in which they have determined that solar farms have not negatively affected adjacent property values. With regards to the Project, we specifically interviewed in Illinois: • In Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois, we spoke with Viki Crouch, the Township Assessor, who she said that there has been no impact on property values due to their proximity to the Grand Ridge Solar Farm. • We spoke with Ken Crowley, Rockford Township Assessor in Winnebago County, Illinois, who stated that he has seen no impact on property values in his township as an effect of proximity to the Rockford Solar Farm. • We spoke with James Weisiger, the Champaign Township Assessor in Champaign County, where the University of Illinois Solar Farm is located, and he noted there appears to have been no impact on property values as a result of proximity to the solar farm. • Cindi Lotz of Fayette County, Illinois did indicate that the Dressor Plains Solar project has not had any impact whatsoever on adjacent property values. To give us additional insight as to how the market evaluates farmland and single-family homes with views of solar farms, we interviewed numerous real estate brokers and other market participants who were party to actual sales of property adjacent to solar; these professionals also confirmed that solar farms did not diminish property values or marketability in the areas they conducted their business. IV. Solar Farm Factors on Harmony of Use (pages 112-120): In the course of our research and studies, we have recorded information regarding the compatibility of these existing solar facilities and their adjoining uses, including the continuing development of land adjoining these facilities. CONCLUSION Considering all of the preceding, the data reviewed does not indicate a negative impact on adjacent property based on proximity to a solar farm. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d C 5 lul d 5 Gul e i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha d ■ . ® ® ® ® • ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M ^ MI! 1• P9 1I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . P"I M 1• P9 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, CohnReznick LLP l Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2025 Pennsylvania License No. GA004632 Expires 6/30/2025 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2024 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Director Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2024 Oregon License No. C001551 Expires 6/30/2024 California License No. 3004919 Expires 11/13/2025 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 6 •••u•uuu•••u••u••••u•uu••••u•uu••••u•uuu•••u••u••••uum.......m............................, TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 2 FINDINGS 3 CONCLUSION 4 SCOPE OF WORK 7 CLIENT AND INTENDED USERS 7 INTENDED USE 7 P URPOSE 7 DEFINITION OF VALUE 7 EFFECTIVE DATE & DATE OF REPORT 8 P RIOR SERVICES 8 INSPECTION 8 OVERVIEW OF SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 9 N ATIONAL COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION 10 ENERGY PRODUCTION IN ILLINOIS 12 APPRAISAL THEORY - ADAJCENT PROPERTY'S IMPACT ON VALUE 14 METHODOLOGY 15 SCOPE OF WORK 16 TECHNIQUE 1: REVIEW OF PUBLISHED STUDIES 18 ACADEMIC REPORTS 18 VALUATION EXPERT REPORTS 21 REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR SOLAR IMPACT REPORTS 21 CONCLUSION 22 TECHNIQUE 2: PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS SOLAR FARM 23 S OLAR FARM 1: 2662 FREEPORT SOLAR CSG, STEPHENSON COUNTY, ILLINOIS 23 SOLAR FARM 2: GRAND RIDGE SOLAR FARM, LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS 29 S OLAR FARM 3: SPRING MILL SOLAR, LAWRENCE COUNTY, INDIANA 34 S OLAR FARM 4: JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 44 S OLAR FARM 5: DTE LAPEER SOLAR PROJECT, LAPEER, MICHIGAN 56 S OLAR FARM 6: DOMINION INDY SOLAR III, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA 72 S OLAR FARM 7: SUNFISH FARM SOLAR, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 84 S OLAR FARM 8: PORTAGE SOLAR FARM, PORTAGE, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA 91 S OLAR FARM 9: IMPA FRANKTON SOLAR FARM, FRANKTON, INDIANA 97 S OLAR FARM 10: VALPARAISO SOLAR, VALPARAISO, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA 103 TECHNIQUE 3: MARKET COMMENTARY 108 SOLAR FARM FACTORS ON HARMONY OF USE 111 S UMMARY OF ADJOINING USES 119 SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS 120 CERTIFICATION 123 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 125 ADDENDUM A: APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS 129 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■u■oso■u■u■■■■■u■u■muwuuu••.■■■u■t■ouo■u■•■.■■■u■u■mswuuu••■■■■u■•■ouo■u■■■■■■■uu••uu■■■■uu Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 7 ..........................................................................................1 SCOPE OF WORK CLIENT AND INTENDED USERS The client and intended user of this report is Pivot Energy Development, LLC; other intended users may include the client's legal and site development professionals. INTENDED USE The intended use of our opinions and conclusions is to assist the client in addressing local concerns and to provide information that local bodies are required to consider in their evaluation of solar project use applications. We have not been asked to value any specific property, and we have not done so. The report may be used only for the aforementioned purpose and may not be distributed without the written consent of CohnReznick LLP ("CohnReznick"). PURPOSE The purpose of this consulting assignment is to determine whether proximity to the proposed solar facility will result in an impact on adjacent property values. DEFINITION OF VALUE This report utilizes Market Value as the appropriate premise of value. Market value is defined as: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale."1 1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12, Chapter I, Part 34.42[h] Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii d Q I . Q Q lul ® ® ® 7' Iii ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ fi9 ^ ""q 7 I9e ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 919 I^!I 9" 1.,‘••••••••••••••••1 EFFECTIVE DATE & DATE OF REPORT May 13, 2024 (Paired sale analyses contained within each study are periodically updated.) PRIOR SERVICES USPAP requires appraisers to disclose to the client any services they have provided in connection with the subject property in the prior three years, including valuation, consulting, property management, brokerage, or any other services. This report is a compilation of the existing solar farms which we have studied over the past year and is not evaluating a specific subject site. In this instance, there is no "subject property" to disclose. INSPECTION Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have viewed the exterior of all comparable data referenced in this report in person, via photographs, or aerial imagery. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 9191^x9 M 1. 99 ‘ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 OVE VIFWN nF Sn' AR PF"FLOPMENT I THP IINITFI STATES Solar development increased almost exponentially over the past ten years in the United States as technology and the economic incentives (Solar Investment Tax Credits or ITC) made the installation of solar farms economically reasonable. The cost to install solar panels has dropped nationally by 70 percent since 2010, which has been one cause that led to the increase in installations. A majority of these solar farm installations are attributed to larger -scale solar farm developments for utility purposes. The chart below portrays the historical increase on an annual basis of solar installations in the US as a whole, courtesy of research by Solar Energy Industries Association (SETA) and Wood Mackenzie, and projects solar photovoltaic (PV) deployment for the next five years through 2028, with the largest percentage of installations attributed to utility -scale projects. US PV installation historical data and forecast, 2014 - 2034 Capacity (GWdc) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 ■ 2026 2028 2030 • Residential is Non-residential • Utility 2032 2034 cilAstdarr, VA Wood Mackenzie Source: SEIA/Wood Mackenzie Solar Market Insight Report 2023 Year -in -Review The U.S. installed 32.4 gigawatts (GWdc) of solar PV capacity in 2023 to reach 177 GWdc of total installed capacity, enough to power 28 million American homes, representing a 51% increase over 2022. This was the industry's biggest year by far, exceeding 30 GWdc of capacity for the first time. Solar has accounted for 53% of all new electricity -generating capacity added in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2023. Residential solar had another record quarter with 6.8 GWdc installed, a 13% increase from 2022. Utility -scale solar installations reached 22.5 GWdc, a 77% increase from 2022 and more than 10 GWdc in the fourth quarter. This growth underscores the market impact of supply chain constraints in 2022. Many of the projects completed in 2023 represent delayed buildout of 2022 pipelines. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI ha ha -1110.9 '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 10 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 77M1M7II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 As of August 12, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act was passed in the Senate and The House of Representatives, which includes long-term solar incentives and investment in domestic solar manufacturing. Included in the bill, a 10 -year extension and expansion of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC) will provide tax credits for solar manufacturing and direct payment options for tax credits. While the uncertainty of the anti - circumvention investigation remains present, the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act gives the solar industry long-term market certainty. The US solar industry is expected to nearly triple in size. Between 2023 and 2028, the industry will add 236 GWdc to an installed base of 142 GWdc (as of year-end 2022). Recent articles show that over the past decade, the solar industry has experienced unprecedented growth. Among the factors contributing to its growth were government incentives, significant capacity additions from existing and new entrants and continual innovation. Solar farms offer a wide array of economic and environmental benefits to surrounding properties. Unlike other energy sources, solar energy does not produce emissions that may cause negative health effects or environmental damage. Solar farms produce a lower electromagnetic field exposure than most household appliances, such as TV and refrigerators, and studies have confirmed there are no health issues related to solar farms.2 Solar farm construction in rural areas has also dramatically increased the tax value of the land on which they are built, which has provided a financial boost to some counties. CohnReznick has studied real estate tax increases due to the installation of solar, which can range up to 10-12 times the rate for farmland. A majority of tax revenue is funneled back into the local area, and as much as 50 percent of increased tax revenue can typically be allocated to the local school district. By converting farmland to a passive solar use for the duration of the system's life, the solar energy use does not burden school systems, utilities, traffic, nor infrastructure as it is a passive use that does not increase population as say a residential subdivision would. Beyond creating jobs, solar farms are also benefiting the overall long-term agricultural health of the community. The unused land, and also all the land beneath the solar panels, will be left to rejuvenate naturally. In the long run this is a better use of land since the soil is allowed to recuperate instead of being ploughed and fertilized year after year. A solar farm can offer some financial security for the property owner over 20 to 25 years. Once solar panel racking systems are removed, the land can revert to its original use.3 NATIONAL COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION As of November 2023, the U.S. produces over 1.272 million megawatts (MW) of power each year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in ±25,750 unique power generation facilities. Of that power produced, approximately 6.5 percent is generated from solar facilities, or 83,194.9 MW AC, at 6,092 solar facilities across the country, reflecting an average facility size of 13.70 MW AC. For community scale solar production, the number of facilities that generate 5 MW or less of power accounts for 64.8 percent of all solar facilities, nationwide, although only 8.8 percent of solar power generated in the country comes from community 2 "Electromagnetic Field and Public Health." Media Centre (2013): 1-4. World Health Organization. 3 NC State Extension. (May 2016). Landowner Solar Leasing: Contract Terms Explained. Retrieved from: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/landowner-solar-leasing-contract-terms-explained Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CohnReznick ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ nn ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 scale facilities, overall, totaling 7,331 MW. The community solar industry had a robust year in 2023 with 827 MW installed through Q3, an increase of 14.0 percent year -over -year, according to SEIA data. Community solar refers to local solar facilities shared by multiple community subscribers who receive credit on their electricity bills for their share of the power produced. There are 41 states, plus D.C., with at least one community solar project on-line, the next five years will see the U.S. community solar market is expected to remain positive with 8 percent average annual growth from 2024 to 2028. Community solar installations increased 14 percent year -over -year as of third quarter 2023, and installations are flat from the second quarter 2023. Due to uncertainty around the anti -circumvention investigation, supply chain issues, and long timelines for new community solar policies, community solar installations growth is expected to remain flat through 2023. The growth of community solar installations from 2014 to 2022 is presented in the following chart. Installed Solar Capacity (MVldc) 140,000 130,000 ,20.000 110.000 100.000 90.000 80.000 70.000 60.000 50,000 40.000 30,000 20,000 10.000 0 Cumulative U.S. Solar Installations 2007 NCI c:: 20': 2011 2012 2011 2011 2013 2016 2017 2011 • Residential Commercial In Community Solar Utility ■ Utility (CSP' While early growth for community solar SOfKC• cU0'66061.1nieaP$ 3Prt.i.•fi1S Se4t% ee°4-t:04 6.2Z installations was led primarily by three key markets - New York, Minnesota, and Massachusetts - a growing list of states with community solar programs have helped diversify the market, creating large pipelines set to come to fruition over the next several years. 2021 2022 Mr. C3 *% M nzie SEIA • v`' N,Mu i DMa n Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d di Q 1111iw id d Gul s d d 1111 d EiQaiGul d Q ■ ■ Q Q 1111iWQMOIJM M ® ® d ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 12 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I17 M RI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 7 rl nfi ^ �, R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ENERGY PRODUCTION IN ILLINOIS As of the end of Q4 2023, Illinois has 2,719 MW of solar installed, ranking 15th in the US for the capacity of solar installed according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SETA). There have been significantly more utility investments in clean energy with continued growth on the horizon, with 6,593 MW of solar proposed to be installed over the next five years. Illinois Annual Solar Installations 750 2 `-'500 a co U 250 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 Residential 2018 2019 2020 2021 Commercial Community Solar Utility 2022 2023 On January 27, 2023, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed a new law, Public Act 102-1123, which refines county governments' ability to regulate new commercial wind and solar energy facilities. Specifically, PA 102-1123 prohibits counties from banning or establishing moratoriums on wind and solar development. The law also establishes siting and zoning standards, which county ordinances may not be more stringent than, and standardizes procedures for counties' review and approval of wind and solar siting or special use permits. Illinois is a growing solar market that has benefited from a strong renewable portfolio standard that requires Illinois generates 25% of their energy from renewable sources by 2025. The amount of solar capacity installed in Illinois is expected to grow by more than 1,700% over the next five years with a total of 6,593 MW planned over that time period. The largest new solar facility in Illinois will be a 600 MW AC utility scale installation projected to become operational in December 2024 in Lee County, that is being developed by Steward Creek Solar. Illinois has several utility scale solar facilities in operation, one of which, the Grand Ridge Solar Farm that we have studied and included in our report. The remaining utility scale solar facilities include: • The 200 MW Prairie Wolf Solar, completed in November 2021 • The 149 MW Big River Solar, completed in August 2022 • The 99 MW Prairie State Solar Project, completed in July 2021 • The 99 MW Dressor Plains Solar projects, completed in September 2021 • The 70 MW Mulligan Solar Project, completed in July 2022 • The 30 MW Prairie Creek Solar, completed in November 2023 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d d d lul k id d d Gul d d d id d Gul a d d WI ha I d•IN® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ 0 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 13 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MinII■■■■■..■■.■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 We spoke to the Supervisor of Assessments for each project to ask whether there have been any transactions or impacts on property values since the completion of the facility. Most Assessment Officers indicated that the project was so new that there was no data in which to study. Cindi Lotz of Fayette County, Illinois did indicate that the Dressor Plains Solar project "has not had any impact whatsoever" on adjacent property values. We have reviewed the areas surrounding each of these newly constructed facilities; as of the reporting date, there are not yet eligible transactions for us to develop an impact study on these projects for inclusion in our analysis. Illinois has seen considerable growth in solar production since the first project became operational in 2009. Of the 146 existing solar projects in Illinois, 11 were completed between 2009 and 2019. A further 46 solar projects were completed in 2020 alone, followed by 64 in 2021, 13 in 2022 and 12 in 2023. The solar projects completed in the last four years account for 92% of the total solar projects in the state and 61 % in the last three years. Nevertheless, we were able to study two existing solar projects in Illinois that had transactions after the completion of the solar project. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 14 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 APPRAISAL TI-IFfPV ADAJCENT PPOPERTV'S IMPACT ON VALUE According to Randall Bell, PhD, MAI, author of text Real Estate Damages, published by the Appraisal Institute in 2016, understanding the market's perceptions on all factors that may have an influence on a property's desirability (and therefore its value) is essential in determining if a diminution or enhancement of value has occurred.4 According to Dr. Bell: "There is often a predisposition to believe that detrimental conditions automatically have a negative impact on property values. However, it is important to keep in mind that if a property's value is to be affected by a negative condition, whether internal or external to the property, that condition must be given enough weight in the decision -making process of buyers and sellers to have a material effect on pricing relative to all the other positive and negative attributes that influence the value of that particular property. "5 Market data and empirical research through the application of the three traditional approaches to value should be utilized to estimate the market value to determine if there is a material effect on pricing due, to the influence of a particular characteristic of or on a property. A credible impact analysis is one that is logical, innate, testable and repeatable, prepared in conformity with approved valuation techniques. In order to produce credible assignment results, more than one valuation technique should be utilized for support for the primary method, or a check of reasonableness, such as utilization of more than one approach to value, conducting a literature review, or having discussions (testimony) with market participants.6 CohnReznick implemented the scientific method' to determine if a detrimental condition of proximity to a solar farm exists, further described in the next section. 4 Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Pages 1-2) Ibid, Page 314 6 Ibid, Pages 7-8 7 The scientific method is a process that involves observation, development of a theory, establishment of a hypothesis, and testing. The valuation process applies principles of the scientific method as a model, based upon economic principles (primarily substitution) as the hypothesis. The steps for the scientific method are outlined as follows: 1. Identify the problem. 2. Collect relevant data. 3. Propose a hypothesis. 4. Test the hypothesis. 5. Assess the validity of the hypothesis. Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Pages 314-316) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 15 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M rnr M ilM il■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r1 Pilrin r, R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this report is to determine whether proximity to the solar facility resulted in any measurable and consistent impact on adjacent property values. To test this hypothesis, CohnReznick identified three relevant techniques to test if a detrimental condition exists. (1) A review of published studies; (2) Paired sale analysis of properties adjacent to existing solar generating facilities, which may include repeat sale analyses or "Before and After" analyses; and, (3) Interviews with real estate professionals and local real estate assessors. The paired sales analysis is an effective method of determining if there is a detrimental impact on surrounding properties. "One of the most useful applications of the sales comparison approach is paired sale analysis. This type of analysis may compare the subject property or similarly impacted properties called Test Areas (at Points B, C, D, E, or F) with unimpaired properties called Control Areas (Point A). A comparison may also be made between the unimpaired value of the subject property before and after the discovery of a detrimental condition. If a legitimate detrimental condition exists, there will likely be a measurable and consistent difference between the two sets of market data; if not, there will likely be no significant difference between the two sets of data. This process involves the study of a group of sales with a detrimental condition, which are then compared to a group of otherwise similar sales without the detrimental condition!' As an approved method, paired sales analysis can be utilized to extract the effect of a single characteristic on value. By definition, paired data analysis is "a quantitative technique used to identify and measure adjustments to the sale prices or rents of comparable properties; to apply this technique, sales or rental data on nearly identical properties is analyzed to isolate a single characteristic's effect on value or rent."9 The text further describes that this method is theoretically sound when an abundance of market data, or sale transactions, is available for analysis. Where data is available, CohnReznick has also prepared "Before and After" analyses or a Repeat Sale Analysis,10 to determine if a detrimental impact has occurred. 8 Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Page 33) 9 The Appraisal of Real Estate 14th Edition. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2013. 10 Another type of paired sales analysis involves studying the sale and subsequent resale of the same property. This method is used to determine the influence of time on market values or to determine the impact of a detrimental condition by comparing values before and after the discovery of the condition. Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Page 35) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CohnReznick ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 16 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ri fir "" 1171 II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ INN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work utilized to test the hypothesis stated on the prior page is as follows: 1. Review published studies, assess credibility, and validity of conclusions; 2. Prepare paired sale analyses for existing solar farms as follows: 2 1 Identify existing solar farms comparable to the proposed project to analyze; 2.2. Define Test Area Sales and Control Areas Sales; 2.3. Collect market data (sale transactions) for both Test Area and Control Area Sales; 2.4. Analyze and confirm sales, including omission of sales that are not reflective of market value; 2.5. Prepare comparative analysis of Test Area and Control Area sales, adjusting for market conditions; 2.6. Interpret calculations; and 3. Conduct interviews with real estate professionals and local real estate assessors who have evaluated real property adjacent to existing solar farms. It should be noted that our impact report data and methodology have been previously reviewed by our peer in the field — Kirkland Appraisals, LLC — as well as by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). The following bullet points summarize important elements to consider in our scope of work: • Test Area Sales consists of sales that are adjacent to an existing solar facility. Ownership and sales history for each adjoining property to an existing solar farm through the effective date of this report is maintained within our workfile. Adjoining properties with no sales data or that sold prior to the announcement of the solar farm were excluded from further analysis. • Control Area Sales are generally located in the same market area, although varies based on the general location of the existing solar farm under analysis. In rural areas, sales are identified first within the township, and expands radially outward through the county until a reliable set of data points is obtained. • Control Area Sales are generally between 12 and 18 months before or after the date of the Test Area Sale(s), and are comparable in physical characteristics such as age, condition, style, and size. • Sales of properties that sold in a non -arm's length transaction (such as a transaction between related parties, bank -owned transaction, or between adjacent owners) were excluded from analysis as these are not considered to be reflective of market value, as defined earlier in this report. The sales that remained after exclusions were considered for a paired sale analysis. • The methodology employed in this report for paired sale analysis does not rely on multiple subjective adjustments that are typical in many appraisals and single -paired sales analyses. Rather, the Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 17 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 77M1M7II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 methodology remains objective, and the only adjustment required is for market conditions '11 the analysis relies upon market conditions trends tracked by credible agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), who maintains a House Price Index ("HPI")12 for macro and micro regions in the United States. A market conditions adjustment is a variable that affects all properties similarly and can be adjusted for in an objective manner. • To make direct comparisons, the sale price of the Control Area Sales was adjusted for market conditions to a common date. In this analysis, the common date is the date of the Test Area Sale(s). After adjustment, any measurable difference between the sale prices would be indicative of a possible price impact by the solar facility. • If there is more than one Test Area Sale to evaluate, the sales are grouped if they exhibit similar transactional and physical characteristics; otherwise, they are evaluated separately with their own respective Control Area Sale groups. 11 Adjusting for market conditions is necessary as described in The Appraisal of Real Estate 14th Edition as follows: "Comparable sales that occurred under market conditions different from those applicable to the subject on the effective date of appraisal require adjustment for any differences that affect their values. An adjustment for market conditions is made if general property values have increased or decreased since the transaction dates." 12 The FHFA HPI is a weighted, repeat -sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or re -financings on the same properties. This information is obtained by reviewing repeat mortgage transactions on single-family properties whose mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since January 1975. The FHFA HPI serves as a timely, accurate indicator of house price trends at various geographic levels. Because of the breadth of the sample, it provides more information than is available in other house price indexes. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 18 •••••••••••••••••••• ■ ■ ■ ENE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r1I^I ' - r, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 TFCHNIOIIIIP 1. REVIEW OF PUBLISHED STUDIES The following is a discussion of various studies that consider the impact of solar farms on surrounding property values. The studies range from quantitative analysis to survey -based formal research to less -formal analyses. ACADEMIC REPORTS There have been three academic reports that attempt to quantify the effect on property values due to proximity to solar. The first report is a study completed by The University of Texas at Austin, published in May 2018.13 The portion of the study focusing on property impact was an Opinion Survey of Assessors with no sales data or evidence included in the survey. The opinion survey was sent to 400 accessors nationwide and received only 37 responses. Of those 37 assessors, only 18 had assessed a home near a utility -scale solar installation, the remainder had not. Of the 18 assessors with experience in valuing homes near solar farms, 17 had not found any impact on home values near solar. Those are the actual facts in the study. A small number of those assessor respondents hypothetically surmised an impact, but none had evidence to support such statements. The paper admits that there is no actual sales data analyzed, and further denotes its own areas of weakness, including "This study did not differentiate between ground -mounted and rooftop installations." The author states on the last line of page 22: "Finally, to shift from perceived to actual property value impacts, future research can conduct analyses on home sales data to collect empirical evidence of actual property value impacts." The paper concludes with a suggestion that a statistic hedonic regression model may better identify impacts. It should be noted that the type of statistical analysis that the author states is required to determine "actual property value impacts' was completed two years later by the following Academic Studies. ii. The second report is a study prepared by a team at the University of Rhode Island, published in September 2020, "Property Value Impacts of Commercial -Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island."14 The study utilized a hedonic pricing model, or multiple regression analysis, to quantify the effect of proximity on property values due to solar by studying existing solar installations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The study evaluated 208 solar facilities, 71,373 housing sales occurring within one -mile of the solar facilities (Test Group), and 343,921 sales between one -to -three miles (Control Group). Because it is a hedonic regression model, it allowed them to isolate specific 13 AI-Hamoodah, Leila, et al. An Exploration of Property -Value Impacts Near Utility -Scale Solar Installations. Policy Research Project (PRP), LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2018, emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/property- value_impacts_near_utility-scale_solar_installations.pdf. 14 Gaur, V. and C. Lang. (2020). Property Value Impacts of Commercial -Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Submitted to University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension on September 29, 2020. Accessed at https://web.uri.edu/coopext/valuing-sitingoptions-for-commercial-scale-solar-energy-in-rhode-island/. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CohnReznick ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 19 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M 7 M 1• n 1I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ^ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 variables that could impact value, including isolating rural and non -rural locations. The study defines "Rural," as an area having a "population density of 850 people per square mile or fewer." The study provides data which found no negative impact to residential homes near solar arrays in rural areas: "these results suggest that [the Test Area] in rural areas is effectively zero (a statistically insignificant 0.1%), and that the negative externalities of solar arrays are only occurring in non -rural areas."15 Further, the study tested to determine if the size of the installation impacted values, and found no evidence of differential property values impacts by the solar installation's size. Thus, not only are there no impacts to homes in similar areas as the proposed Project, but any differences in the size of a solar farm are similarly not demonstrating an impact. iii. The third report is a published study prepared by Dr. Nino Abashidze, School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, dated October 20, 2020, entitled "Utility Scale Solar Farms and Agricultural Land Values." Abashidze examined 451 solar farms in North Carolina. "Across many samples and specifications, we find no direct negative or positive spillover effect of a solar farm construction on nearby agricultural land values. Although there are no direct effects of solar farms on nearby agricultural land values, we do find evidence that suggests construction of a solar farm may create a small, positive, option -value for land owners that is capitalized into land prices. Specifically, after construction of a nearby solar farm, we find that agricultural land that is also located near transmission infrastructure may increase modestly in value." iv. On March 1, 2023, an article was prepared by the Energy Analysis and Environmental Impacts Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Berkeley, CA ("BNL"), which measured 1.8 million residential transactions around solar facilities greater than 1 MW in the states of CA, CT, MA, MN, NC and NJ. We are still reviewing this article although it does note that for the overwhelmingly majority of the transactions (in the states of CA, CT and MA), no impact was measured near large-scale photo -voltaic facilities or LSPV's. The authors of the study similarly released a webinar discussing the study, as well as key limitations of the study, as follows: • The dataset is centered on relatively small projects in relatively urban areas... Our results should not be applied to larger projects, e.g., those >18 MW, and, of course projects built far from homes. • [The] study did not consider site design, setbacks or landscaping features... • Across the full dataset (all 6 states) only larger projects (greater than 12 acres) are correlated with a loss in house prices within 0.5 miles (compared to 2-4 miles away); BUT this analysis only applies to relatively small projects (90% are less than 35 acres/8 MW), so "large" is relative to the median of 12 acres. • Only 6 states are included; therefore, the results would not necessarily apply outside the sample area. 15 The U of RI study's conclusion that there may be an impact to non -rural communities is surmised is that "land is abundant in rural areas, so the development of some land into solar does little to impact scarcity, whereas in non -rural areas it makes a noticeable impact. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 20 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u ............ • u a u u • • MINI . u u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 Given these limitations, we do not believe the study is overwhelmingly conclusive, and, if any, only presents limited data showing a rather small impact in certain areas. The states showing no impact reflect 68.6% of all the transactions studied. Our review of the study revealed key questions that we believe limit the applicability of the study as a whole: 1 The study does not show the data for the largest of the solar facilities mapped and whether those reveal transactions that are consistent with the study's results (i.e., solar facilities greater than 18 MW in all six states). We would hypothesize that the largest of the facilities would show the greatest amount of impact; this is not expressed (and so likely not true). Further, our own studies of the largest facilities in Minnesota (the 100 MW North Star Solar Farm) rebut the study's results. 2. There was no effort by the authors to interpret whether other adjacent property next to solar facilities might also impact local residential values. This could include large commercial buildings, office towers, industrial developments or highways. This might have swayed the results. 3. Data results are somewhat contrary to common reason — for example, their conclusions indicate a negative impact in rural areas, insignificant impact in urban areas, but overwhelmingly positive results for "urban cluster" areas. This diverges from the theory that density and impact correlate. 4. Data results using similar methodology in the URI study reveal contrary results: while the URI study found no impact in rural communities, the BNL study indicates some very small degree of impact, and while the BNL study showed no impact in suburban areas, the URI did show a rather small impact. The results, therefore, are mixed and do not indicate consistent and measurable evidence. 5. Whether the results of -1.5% is applicable in terms of its relative degree. This is a rather small percentage and most appraisers and valuation professionals would find it difficult to profess this is of a magnitude that would be recognized in the market. The BNL study does represent the largest study to date on the topic of solar farms and property values. We find that the majority of the data indicates no impact. The authors themselves suggest additional focus as follows: "more research is needed to understand the heterogeneity that we observe with respect to larger, agricultural and rural LSPVs [in the MN, NJ and NC contexts]. Here, surveys, qualitative research, mixed -methods, and case study -based approaches may indicate how neighbors of LSPVS engage differently with their nearby solar installations based on its size, land use, or the urbanicity of their home." CohnReznick agrees with the BNL suggestion — and covers specifically this request in our own studies within Minnesota and North Carolina, as well as several other solar farms of various sizes in various locations. v In April 2024 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, published a report titled Perceptions of Large -Scale Solar Project Neighbors: Results From a National Survey.16 Authored by Joseph Rand, Ben Hoen, Karl Hoesch, Sarah Mills, Robi Nilson, Doug Bassette and Jack White, the report is a summation of a nearly 16 Rand Joseph, et al. Perceptions of Large -Scale Solar Project Neighbors: Results From a National Survey, Energy Markets & Policy, Berkeley Lab, April 2024, Perceptions of Large -Scale Solar Project Neighbors: Results From a National Survey I Enemy Markets & Policy (lbl.gov). Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 21 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M rFr9 1•7••••••••••••••••••••••••••• OE nfi^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 1,000 resident survey. An opinion survey was sent to residents living within three miles of large-scale solar (LSS), and 984 responses were collected. The survey revealed that "among LSS neighbors, `positive' attitudes outnumber `negative' by nearly a 3 to 1 margin. Looking across the full set of respondents that were aware of their local LSS project, 43% reported a `positive' or 'very positive' attitude toward it, 42% were `neutral', and 15% reported a `negative' or 'very negative' attitude. 42% report that they would support additional LSS in their community, compared to 18% that would oppose it." Additionally, the report noted that "Roughly 1/3 of residents living within 3 miles of LSS projects did not know their local project existed. Those living closest to projects and respondents around the largest projects in our sample (>100 MW) tended to be more familiar with them, but even some respondents living within % mile were unaware." VALUATION EXPERT REPORTS We have similarly considered property value impact studies prepared by other experts, which have also noted that the installation of utility -scale solar on a property has no measurable or consistent impact on adjoining property value. According to a report titled "Mapleton Solar Impact Study" from Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, conducted in Murfreesboro, North Carolina in September 2017, which studied 13 existing solar farms in the state, found that the solar farms had no impact on adjacent vacant residential, agricultural land, or residential homes. The paired sales data analysis in the report primarily consisted of low density residential and agricultural land uses and included one case where the solar farm adjoined to two dense subdivisions of homes. Donald Fisher, ARA, who has served six years as Chair of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, and has prepared several market studies examining the impact of solar on residential values was quoted in a press release dated February 15, 2021 stating, "Most of the locations were in either suburban or rural areas, and all of these studies found either a neutral impact or, ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after the installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends." REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR SOLAR IMPACT REPORTS The Chisago County (Minnesota) Assessor's Office conducted their own study on property prices adjacent to and in the close vicinity of the North Star solar farm in Chisago County, Minnesota. At the November 2017 Chisago County Board meeting, John Keefe, the Chisago County Assessor, presented data from his study. He concluded that the North Star solar farm had, "no adverse impact" on property values. His study encompassed 15 parcels that sold and were adjacent or in the close vicinity to the solar farm between January 2016 and October 2017; the control group used for comparison comprised of over 700 sales within the county. Almost all of the [Test Area] properties sold were at a price above the assessed value. He further stated that, "It seems conclusive that valuation has not suffered."17 Furthermore, Grant County, Kentucky Property Value Administrator, Elliott Anderson, stated that Duke Energy built a solar farm near Crittenden, adjacent to existing homes on Claiborne Drive in December 2017. At the time of the interview, there have been nine arm's length homes sales on that street since the solar farm commenced 17 Chisago County Press: County Board Real Estate Update Shows No "Solar Effects" (11/03/2017) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 22 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1171II■■■■■..■■.■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 operations. Each of those nine homes sold higher than its assessed value, and one over 32 percent higher. At the time, Anderson noted that several more lots were for sale by the developer and four more homes were currently under construction. Anderson said that the solar farm had no impact either on adjoining home values or on marketability or desirability of those homes adjacent to the solar farm. CONCLUSION These published studies and other valuation expert opinions, conclude that there is no impact to property adjacent to established solar farms. These conclusions have been confirmed by academic studies utilizing large sales databases and regression analysis investigating this uses' potential impact on property values. Further, the conclusion has been confirmed by county assessors who have also investigated this adjacent land use' potential impact on property values. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 23 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 TECHNIQUE 2: PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS SOLAR FARM SOLAR FARM 1: 2662 FREEPORT SOLAR CSG, STEPHENSON COUNTY, IL Coordinates: Latitude 42.33941447101255, Longitude -89.6394781667045 PIN: 08-00-13-800-001 Total Land Size: 17.84 acres Date Project Announced: N/A Date Project Completed: December 2020 Output: 2.0 MW AC Approximate 2662 Freeport Solar CSG boundaries outlined in yellow, aerial imagery provided by Google Earth G M1 '9~Comrner, ial La►tdiscaping 1 t'1 \ •, 2662 Freeport Solar CSG is located in Stephenson County, Illinois and is accessible via Illinois Route 26 N. The solar farm was developed by Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. and RECON Corporation and the improvements are owned by 2662 Freeport Solar I LLC. The solar farm went into operation in December 2020 with a total of 140,438 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 24 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1171II■■■■■..■■.■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 square feet of solar panels. The 17.84 -acre solar farm was located on a larger 45 -acre parcel that was replatted in January 2021. The underlying land of the solar farm sold in May 2022 for $200,000, with a 20 -year ground lease for the solar panels. The remaining portion of the parcel — 27.16 acres — includes a single-family home, farm buildings, and farmland and has an easement for access to the solar site. The Surrounding Area: The 2662 Freeport Solar CSG installation is located in Stephenson County, directly north of the City of Freeport. Stephenson County is located on the northern border of the state of Illinois, along the border with Wisconsin. The solar site is approximately 3 miles north of downtown Freeport and 100 miles northwest of the City of Chicago. The 2662 Freeport Solar CSG project is one of 134 solar farms in Illinois and one of nine solar farms located within Stephenson County. The 2662 Freeport Solar CSG project is a similar size to all of the existing solar farms in Illinois with the exception of seven that are significantly larger and have output ranging from 10 to 200 MW. All of the solar farms in Stephenson County have capacity of 2.0 MW, similar to 2662 Freeport Solar CSG. The Immediate Area: The solar farm is located in between W. Winneshiek Road to the north, Jay Street to the south, Blumenthal Road to the west, and Route 26 N to the east. The solar site is surrounded by farmland to the north and west, farmland and farmhouse buildings to the east, and single-family homes in a community surrounding Willow Lake to the south. The parcel lines of the single-family homes to the south are lined with mature trees. The single-family home located adjacent to the east of the solar site is surrounded by mature trees while the farm buildings have direct views of the solar site. Real Estate Tax Info: In 2021 (payable 2022), the assessed value of the improvements was $145,333 and the owner paid $16,038 in real estate taxes. The 2021 assessed value of the underlying land was $2,404 and the participating the landowner paid $265 in real estate taxes. Prior assessment and tax information was unavailable given the split of the parcels, and the previous assessment and taxes included the larger 45 -acre site and structures. Adjoining Parcels: The following map displays the parcel in the solar farm site (outlined in red). Properties adjoining the solar parcels are numbered for subsequent analysis. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 25 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. ... . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 2662 Freeport Solar CSG - Adjoining Properties The surrounding area is primarily populated with agricultural uses to the north, east, and west, and a single- family home residential community to the south. Some of the agricultural parcels contain homesteads on the site and others are fully unimproved. Adjoining Properties 4, 6, 8, and 9 have no sales data. Therefore, Adjoining Properties 4, 6, 8, and 9 are excluded from further analysis. Recall, the solar farm under analysis began operations in December 2020. Adjoining Properties 1, 3, 5, 7, and 12 were sold in 2003, 2019, 2002, 2012, and 2008, respectively. These sales did not occur within a reasonable time period prior to /completion. Therefore, Adjoining Properties 1, 3, 5, 7, and 12 were excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Property 11 sold in December 2021 and is comprised of 27 acres. Adjoining Property 11 consists of the remaining portion of the solar farm's parcel that was subdivided in 2020. Adjoining Property 11 includes a farmhouse, farm buildings, farmland, and an easement for access to the solar farm. We searched Stephenson County for sales of similar properties to Sale 3 with large areas of farmland and farm buildings and only found two comparables sales more than 15 acres. We excluded Adjoining Property 11 as a Test Area Sale given the easement and limited comparable Control Area Sales. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha is d Iv Q ai WI ha vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha ii d i .. l;i Q lul ... 7' lli ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 26 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Rirr n•fit7II■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Therefore, we have only considered Adjoining Properties 2 and 10 for paired sales analysis (identified as Test Area Sales 1 and 2 going forward). PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We considered only one type of paired sales anaylsis, which was comparing sales of properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales) to the sales of adjoining properties after the completion of the solar farm project (Test Area Sales). Test Area Sales 1 and 2 are located in the single-family residential subdivision ajdacent to the south of the solar farm and have been utilized as a group of test sales. We identified Control Area Sale data through the RealQuest database which aggregates real estate sales from public record. We verified these sales through county records and conversations with brokers and sellers. We excluded sales that were not arm's length, such as REO sales or bank -owned properties, or those between related parties. It is important to note the these Control Area Sales are not adjoining to any solar farm, nor do they have a view of one from the property. Therefore, the announcement nor the completion of the solar farm use could not have impacted the sales price of these properties. Additionally, these Control Area Sales are all located within a one mile radius of the 2662 Freeport Solar CSG project. Test Area Sale 1 sold in November 2020 for $140,000 after being on the market for 40 days. The property is a single -story 1,750 square foot home with a 2 -car attached garage, located on a 0.5 -acre lot. The improvements on this property are located approximately 230 feet to the nearest solar panel while the property line is approximately 100 feet to the nearest solar panel. Test Area Sale 2 sold in January 2021 for $150,000 after being on the market for 51 days. The property is a one- to two-story 2,009 square foot home with a 2 -car attached garage and 2.5 -stall detached garage, located on a 0.5 -acre lot. The improvements on this property are located approximately 330 feet to the nearest solar panel while the property line is approximately 280 feet to the nearest solar panel. The table on the following page outlines the characteristics of the Test Area Sales. Test Area Sale 1 III_ � .r _ �' Test Area Sale 2 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 27 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Pir 2662 Freeport Test Area Solar Sales 1 CSG Sale # Address Sale Price Beds Baths Year Built Home Improvements Site Sale Price/ SF Sale Date Size Size (AC) (SF) 1 1424 Jay St. $140,000 Freeport, IL 61032 2 half) 3 2.0 (1 full, 1979 1,750 1 -story attached SFH with garage 2 -car 0.5 $80.00 Nov -20 2 1226 Freeport, Jay IL St. 61032 $150,000 3 2.5 1977 2,009 1-2 detached attached story SFH garage 2.5 stall with 2 -car and garage 0.5 $74.66 Jan -21 We analyzed 14 Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within 12 months from the median sale date of the Test Area Sales. The Control Area Sales are single-family homes with three to four bedrooms and 2 to 2.5 baths, consist of between 1,200 square feet and 2,300 square feet of gross living area, and built between 1957 and 1993. The Control Area Sales have a partial unfinished basement or finished basement, and are located on lots between 0.3 and 0.6 acres in size. The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeated -sales index measuring the average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for the 2662 Freeport Solar CSG project is presented below. CohnReznick Paired Sales Anaysis 2662 Freeport Solar 1 CSG No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Price Median Per SF Test Area Sales (2) Yes: Adjoining solar farm $77.33 Control Area Sales (14) No: Not adjoining solar farm $76.08 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and 1.65% Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales The marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales ranged from 16 to 87 days on market with a median of 61 days. The marketing time for to Test Area Sales ranged from 40 to 51 days, which is within the range of the Control Area Sales and below the median, and we note no substantial marketing time differential. The small differential between the Test Area Sale and the Control Area Sales is within the range of normal market variance, and therefore it does not appear that the 2662 Freeport Solar CSG installation impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sales. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 28 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ In " 1 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ' ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 We contacted the selling broker of Test Area Sale 2, Julie Wenzel of RE/MAX Town Lake & Country, who indicated that proximity to the solar farm did not impact the sale of the property. Additionally, we spoke with Cami Grossenbacher, Stephenson County Deputy Assessor, who stated that there has been no impact on property values due to their proximity to the 2662 Freeport Solar CSG project. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 29 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ® ■ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 SOLAR FARM 2: GRAND RIDGE SOLAR FARM, LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Coordinates: Latitude 41.143421, Longitude -88.758340 PINs: 34-22-100-000, 34-22-101-000 Total Land Size: 158 acres Date Project Announced: December 31, 2010 Date Project Completed: July 2012 Output: 20 MW AC This solar farm is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of E. 21St and N. 15th Roads, near Streator, in LaSalle County, Illinois. The solar farm was developed by Invenergy and is part of a renewable energy center known as Grand Ridge. The Energy Center includes the 20 MW AC solar facility, a 210 MW wind farm, and a 36 MW advanced -energy storage facility, all in one local vicinity. The solar site is located adjacent to the south and west of Invenergy's wind farm. The solar facility consists of 20 individual 1 -MW solar inverters and over 155,000 photovoltaic solar panels manufactured by General Electric. The Surrounding Area: The Grand Ridge Solar Farm is situated just outside of the City of Streator, in Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois. The solar farm is located in a primarily rural part of Illinois, with the nearest interstate, Interstate -55, located approximately 14 miles southeast of the site. The Immediate Area: Within a one -mile radius of the solar farm, surrounding uses mainly consist of agricultural land, with some single-family homes to the west. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural and/or residential purposes. The solar site is surrounded by row crops to the north adjoining N. 15th Road. Row crops also adjoin the solar arrays to the east. Scrub shrubbery exists on the western border of the solar site, along E. 21st Road. On the west side of E. 21st Road is the 28 -acre private Sandy Ford Sportsmans Club that includes a 12 -acre fishing lake. The private Lazy Acres Fishing Club adjoins the solar site to the south and is surrounded by mature trees. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2011, the owner of this 158 -acre site paid real estate taxes of $3,000 annually. In the year following the solar farm development, 2012, real estate taxes increased to approximately $240,000, a 7,791 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. PIN Acres LaSalle County, IL 34-22-100-000 78.99 34-22-101-000 78.80 TOTAL 157.79 2011 Taxes Paid -1111 2012 Taxes Paid nr Tax Increase $ 1,580 $ 1,457 $ 120,064 $ 119,539 7501% 8106% $ 3,036 $ 239,602 7791 2011 Assessed Value li 2012 Assessed Value Increase Value $ 23,830 $ 21,975 $ 1,812,357 $ 1,804,433 7505% 8111% $ 45,805 $ 3,616,790 7796% Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii d Q .. Q Q lul ... 7' Iii ®® d■.®®®®.■■. 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 30 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ RI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ' ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 The map below displays the parcels in the solar farm site (outlined in red). Properties adjoining the solar parcels are numbered for subsequent analysis. Grand Ridge Solar - Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 31 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ri fir "" 1171 II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ SINE' ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 The surrounding area is primarily populated with agricultural uses. Some of these agricultural parcels contain homesteads on the site and others are fully unimproved. Adjoining Properties 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 have no sales data, therefore, those properties djoining Properties have been excluded from further analysis. Recall, the solar farm was announced on December 31, 2010 and began operations in July 2012. Adjoining Properties 8 and 9 were sold in 1997 and 1996, respectively. These sales did not occur within a reasonable time period prior to announcement/completion. Therefore, Adjoining Properties 8 and 9 were excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Property 4 sold in March 2011 while construction was ongoing. However, we have not considered this property for a paired sales analysis because the impact of being proximate to the solar farm could not be differentiated from the impact of the construction. Therefore, Adjoining Property 4 was excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Property 2 transferred in September of 2018 with no consideration amount on a Trustee's deed from Gemini Farms LLC to the Bedeker Family Gift Trust. John and Susan Bedeker are owners of the Adjoining Property 1. This is not considered an arm's length transaction, therefore, Adjoining Property 2 was excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Properties 11 and 12 were initially one parcel of 37.07 acres. Adjoining Property 12 sold in October 2016, which is a reasonable time period after completion of the solar farm. When Adjoining Property 12 was sold, the parcel was split into the two -acre homesite now known as Adjoining Propeprty 12, and the 35.07 acre farm, that was retained by the seller. Therefore, we have excluded Adjoining Property 11 and only considered Adjoining Property 12 (Test Area Sale) for paired sales analysis. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered only one type of paired sales analysis, we have compared sales of similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales) to the sales of the adjoining property (Test Area Sale), after the completion of the solar farm project. Adjoining Property 12 (Test Area Sale) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use, a 2,328 square foot home located on a 2.0- acre parcel that sold in October 2016. This parcel is approximately 366 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 479 feet from the closest solar panel. The table on the following page outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 12. Grand Test Area Sale Ridge - Adjoining Solar Farm Property 12 Property # Address Sale Price Beds Baths Y ea Built r Home Size (SF) Improvements Site Size (AC) Sale Price/SF I ii Sale Date 1 Adjoining Property 12 2098 Streator, N 15th IL Rd, $186,000 3 4.0 1997 2,328 Single and Farm Family Garage Acreage Home and 2.0 $79.90 Oct -16 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d C 5 lul d 5 Gul e i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ rifiMM‘lil•••••••••••••••••••••••••• t Page I 32 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 We have found five Control Area Sales using data from the Northern Illinois Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and verified these sales through county records, conversations with brokers, and the County Assessor's office. We excluded sales that were not arm's length, such as REO sales or those between related parties. We have excluded any home sites under one acre and included only sales with a similar quantity of bedrooms, bathrooms, and living area. The Control Area Sales are comparable in most physical characteristics and bracket Adjoining Property 12 reasonably. Grand Ridge Solar: Test Area Sale Map It is important to note that the Control Area Sales are not adjoining to any solar farm, nor do they have a view of one from the property. Therefore, neither the announcement nor the completion of the solar farm use could have impacted the sales price of these properties. It is informative to note that the average marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales of 171 days is consistent with the marketing time for the Test Area Sale which was on the market for 169 days. This is an indication that the marketability of the Test Area Sale was not negatively influenced by proximity to the solar farm. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 33 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ u 1,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 We analyzed the five Control Area Sales and adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identity the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The results of the paired sales analysis for the Grand Ridge Solar Farm are presented below. CohnReznick Paired Sales Anaysis Grand Adjoining Ridge Solar Property Farm 12 No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Price Mediall Per SF Test Area Sale (1) Yes: Adjoining solar farm $79.90 Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $74.35 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted 7.46% Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales The unit sale price of the Test Area Sale was somewhat higher than the median adjusted unit sale price of the Control Area Sales. We contacted the selling broker of the Test Area Sale home, Tina Sergenti with Coldwell Banker, who said that the proximity of the solar farm had no impact on the marketing time or selling price of the home. The Test Area Sale sold with 169 days on market (5 — 6 months) compared to the Control Area Sales, which sold between 10 471 days on market (0 and 16 months). Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Grand Ridge Solar Farm impacted the sales price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 12. This was confirmed by the real estate agent who marketed and sold this home. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 34 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 SOLAR FARM 3: SPRING MILL SOLAR, LAWRENCE COUNTY, IN Coordinates: Latitude 38.709545, Longitude -89.46968 PI Ns: 47-14-12-800-078.019-004 Population Density, Lawrence County (2023): 100 people per square mile Total Land Size: 8.56 -acres Date Project Announced: N/A Date Project Completed: September 2017 Output: 1.1 MW AC Approximate Spring Mill Solar boundaries outlined in yellow, aerial imagery provided by Google Earth dated October 2019 ttiSpring Mull Solar Farm The Spring Mill Solar project is located in Lawrence County, Indiana and is in between Parks Implement Road to the north, Indiana State Road 37 to the east and is bisected by Clover Lane. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 35 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ " 1 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ^ ^ :I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 The current owner of the solar farm is Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., an electric cooperative with ten solar installations, including Spring Mill Solar, within the States of Indiana and Illinois. Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. only serves its' members as a cooperative and is not for-profit, like a majority of major electrical utilities. The solar farm went into operation in September 2017 and is comprised of nearly 4,000 panels. The Surrounding Area: The Spring Mill Solar installation is located in southern Lawrence County, Indiana, approximately 10 miles south of the City of Bedford, in the south-central portion of Indiana. Lawrence County benefits from close proximity to the Naval Support Activity Crane, the third largest naval base in the world located in adjacent Martin County, making defense a prospective industry for growth while the Limestone Mining Industry is the foundation of commerce in Lawrence County. The solar site is approximately 50 miles northwest of the City of Louisville, 70 miles southwest of the City of Indianapolis, and 110 miles southwest of the City of Cincinnati. The Spring Mill Solar project is one of the 92 solar farms in Indiana and is the sole solar farm located within Lawrence County, Indiana. The Spring Mill Solar project is one of the smaller solar farms in Indiana, with the largest solar farms in the state being the 265 MW Dunn's Bridge Solar farm in Jasper County, the Riverstart Solar Park in Randolph County and the Indiana Crossroads Solar Park in White County, which both produce an output of 200 MW. The Immediate Area: The solar farm is bisected by Clover Lane and is located along Indiana -37 to the east. The solar farm is immediately surrounded by primarily vacant agricultural land with residential homestead properties interspersed to the east and west. Approximately one and a half miles to the north lies more densely concentrated residential and commercial properties in the City of Mitchell. Real Estate Tax Info: In Lawrence County, Indiana, real property is assessed on annual basis as of January 1 each year. The Notice of Assessment is typically sent out to property owners in April of each year and Property tax bills are then due the following May 10th and November 13th for the preceding tax year. In the State of Indiana, land utilized for solar projects have an additional increase to the assessed land value or, "Solar Base Rate", which is set by the State and ranged from $5,000 to $13,000 per acre in 2022. Prior to the development of the solar farm, the underlying land was part of a larger parent parcel (47-14-12-800- 033.000-004*) that is 55.67 -acres in size and was split to create a new parcel on which the Spring Mill Solar facility was constructed (47-14-12-800-078.019-004). In 2017, prior to the property being assessed as a solar farm, the assessed value of the land was $79,500 and ownership paid $2,251 in real estate taxes. In 2018, the assessed value increased 131.57 percent to $184,100 and the real estate tax increased to $3,459, an increase in tax revenue of 53.71 percent. Pin Acre 47-14-12-800-078.019-004 8.56 47-14-12-800-033.000-004* 55.67* Tota I 8.56 2017 Taxes 2018 Taxes Tax Paid Paid Increas - $3,459 53.71% $2,251 - - $2,251 $3,459 53.71% 1(017 AssessedIL Value 2018 Assessed Value Value Increa - $79,500 $184,100 - 131.57% - $79,500 $184,100 131.57% Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 36 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ " 1,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■We' r ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 The following maps display the parcels developed with the solar farm (outlined in yellow). Properties immediately adjoining the solar parcels (outlined in red) are numbered for subsequent analysis. It is noted that the most recent and available aerial imagery provided by Google Earth is dated October 2019. Spring Mill Solar— Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 37 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u ...... a m • m u • • • • • • • W E IN • u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Group 1 - Improved Single -Family Residential Properties Adjoining Property 3 to the Spring Mill Solar Project was considered for a paired sales anaylsis, and we have anaylzed this property as a single-family home use in Group 1. The property is a one-story, 2,710 sqaure foot home with an attached garage and a pole barn (in need of roof replacement at the time of sale), located on a 17.50 -acre lot that sold in June 2021. This property line is approximately 55 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 275 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 3. SUMMARY OF TEST AREA Solar SALE Group 1 - Spring Mill Baths Year °m Size (SF) - Improveme Site Size AC Sale SF Price 40 / Sale Da Built 3 1933 Clover Mitchell Lane, $265,000 3 2.5 1972 2,710 1 -Story Garage need of SFH and roof with Pole replacement) Attached Barn (in 17.50 $97.79 Jun -21 Spring Mill Solar Farm - Test Area Sale Map, Group 1 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 38 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1171II■.■■■..■■.■■■...■■■■.■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . 1 We analyzed seven Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were located within Lawrence, Orange, Washington, Martin and Jackson Counties, that were not located in close proximity to Spring Mill Solar, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale in Group 1. The Control Area Sales for Group 1 are single-family homes located on lots between 5.5- and 17.25 - acres in size with three to four bedrooms and two to three baths, consisting of between 2,305 square feet and 3,016 square feet of gross living area, and built between 1968 and 1981. The Control Area Sales also have two - car garage parking and a majority of the Control Area Sales have farm structures such as pole barns, workshops or utility sheds. The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeated -sales index measuring the average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for the Spring Mill Solar Farm - Group 1 is presented below. CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Spring Mill Solar Group 1 No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Adjusted Mediance Per Price SF Solar Farm Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining solar farm $97.79 Control Area Sales (7) No: Not adjoining solar farm $100.84 -3.03% Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales We spoke with Christina Root, listing agent for 1933 Clover Lane, who stated that the buyers were very familiar with the area and were not concerned about the adjacent Spring Mill Solar Farm. Additionally, Ms. Root indicated that the Spring Mill Solar Farm had no impact on the final sale price as the property sold for its' listed price after just over one month on the market. We note that the Test Area Sale in Group 1 included a pole barn with a roof needing replacement at the time of sale and none of the control sales indicated having deferred maintenance when sold. Noting no negative marketing time differential, Test Area Sale 1 sold in 55 days, while the Control Area Sales sold between 34 and 68 days, with a median time on market of 43 days. Additionally, the Control Area Sales sold between 2.87 percent below to 1.89 percent above their listing price while Test Area Sale 1 sold at its' listing price, which is within the range of the Control Area Sales. The small differential between the Test Area Sale and the Control Area Sales is within the range of normal market variance, and therefore it does not appear that the Spring Mill Solar Farm impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sale. We note that the control data had a higher median year built, representing more recently constructed residences, which likely explains the relative difference in adjusted median price per square foot. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 39 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u ............ • u a u u • • MINI . u u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 80 70 60 +r - 50 c0 3 c 40 O 0 � 30 0 20 10 0 12/1/2019 Days on Market for the Test Area Sale and Control Area Sales, Group 1 • • • • • • • a 3/10/2020 6/18/2020 9/26/2020 1/4/2021 4/14/2021 7/23/2021 10/31/2021 Sale Date • Control Area Sales • Test Area Sale Sale to List Price Ratio 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% -1.00% -2.00% -3.00% -4.00% Sale Price to List Price Ratio for the Test Area Sale and Control Area Sales, Group 1 • • • • • • a • 12/1/2019 3/10/2020 6/18/2020 9/26/2020 1/4/2021 4/14/2021 7/23/2021 10/31/2021 Sale Date • Control Area Sales • Test Area Sale Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Orrrmmn•M 1••■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mr Page I 40 n • MI ••••••••••• ■ ■ ■ � Group 2 - Improved Single -Family Residential Properties Adjoining Property 10 to the Spring Mill Solar project was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we have analyzed this property as single-family home use in Group 2. The property is a one-story 2,706 square foot home with an attached garage and pole barn, located on a 1.43 -acre lot and sold in August 2023. The improvements on this property are located approximately 575 feet to the nearest solar panel while the property line is approximately 450 feet to the nearest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. SUMMARY OF TEST AREA SALE Group 2 - Spring Mill Solar Adjill Property # Address Sale Price Beds Baths Year Home (SF) Size Improvements Site Size (AC) Sale SF Price / Sale Date Built 25 42 Gun Club Road, Mitchell $299,000 3 2.5 1974 2,706 1 -Story SFH Attached Garage Pole Barn with and 1.43 $110.50 Aug -23 We analyzed 15 Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are single-family homes located on lots inbetween 0.5 and 2.72 -acres in size with three to four bedrooms and two to three baths, consisting of between 2,200 square feet and 3,140 square feet of gross living area, and built between 1964 and 1983. The Control Area Sales also have two -car garage parking and a majority of the Control Area Sales have farm structures such as pole barns, workshops or utility sheds. The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeated -sales index measuring the average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for the Spring Mill Solar Farm - Group 2 is presented below. CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Spring Mill Solar Group 2 No. of Sales Adjusted Per Median SF Price Potentially Impacted Farm by Solar Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining solar farm $110.50 Control Area Sales (15) No: Not adjoining solar farm $102.03 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted 8.30% Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Spring Mill Solar Farm use impacted the sale of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 10. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha & M ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 41 ........................................................... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ I Noting no negative marketing time differential, Test Area Sale 2 sold in 98 days, while the Control Area Sales sold between 29 and 176 days. Additionally, the Control Area Sales sold for between 8.94 percent below to 4.05 percent above their listing price while Test Area Sale 2 sold for 5.08 percent less than its' listing price, which is within the range of the Control Area Sales. 200 180 160 }, 140 a) 1 120 2 C 100 O �. 80 a 60 40 20 0 Days on Market for the Test Area Sale and Control Area Sales, Group 2 • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • 2/8/2022 5/19/2022 8/27/2022 12/5/2022 3/15/2023 6/23/2023 10/1/2023 1/9/2024 Sale Date • Control Area Sales • Test Area Sale Before & After Analysis - Assembly Solar Farm We note the Test Area Sale in Group 2 of the Spring Mill Solar Farm Study (Adjoining Property 10) as well as seven Control Area Sales have sold at least twice over the past five years. To determine if any of the rates of appreciation for these identified home sales were affected by the proximity to the Spring Mill Solar Farm, we prepared a Repeat -Sales Analysis on the identified adjoining property. First, we calculated the total appreciation between each sale of the same property, the number of months that elapsed between each sale, and determined the monthly appreciation rate. Then, we compared extracted appreciation rates reflected in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Home Price Index for Indiana's 474 Three Digit Zip Code, where Adjoining Property 10 is located, over the same period. The index for the zip code is measured on a quarterly basis and is presented in the following table. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 42 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. ... .. . .. . . . .. ... .. . .. . . . .... . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 474 Three Digit Zip Code - Housing Prime Index Change (Quarter over Quarter) Not Seasonally Adjusted Three -Digit ZIP Code Year Quarter Index (NSA) a 474 2017 474 2017 474 2017 474 2017 474 2018 474 2018 474 2018 474 2018 474 2019 474 2019 474 2019 474 2019 474 2020 474 2020 474 2020 474 2020 474 2021 474 2021 474 2021 474 2021 474 2022 474 2022 474 2022 474 2022 474 2023 474 2023 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 187.17 188.57 194.19 191.52 198.3 202.76 203.27 204.61 207.15 213.58 216.22 221.52 223.34 225.46 227.72 233.87 239.4 255.49 264.07 271.71 281.21 302.74 305.83 305.51 299.43 315.26 We have presented the full repeat sales analysis on the following page. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii d Q .. Q Q lul ... 7' Iii ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 43 ..................•••W W ••• ............................ W ••• ......NIEW • .................. W ••• ............••••• I Repeat Sales Analysis - Test Area Sales 474 Three Digit ZpCode - FHFA Housing Price Index Change Total Months Months Elapsed Monthly Property ID Address Land Area (Acres) Finished Living Most Area Sale Recent Most Date Sale Recent Price Prior Sale Date Prior Price Sale Total Appreciation Elapsed Between Appreciation Monthly Between Sales Appreciation Rate (SF) Sales R ate 10 42 Gun Club Road 1.43 2,706 8/22/2023 $299,000 10/30/2018 $190,000 57.37% 58 0.79% 58 0.75% Repeat Sales Analysis - Control Area Sales 474 Three Digit Zp Code - FHFA Housing Price Index Change Property Land Area Finished Total Most Recent Most Recent Prior Sale Prior Sale Total Months Elapsed Monthly Months Elapsed Monthly ID Address (Acres) Living Area Sale Date Sale Price Date Price Appreciation Between Appreciation Between Sales Appreciation Rate (SF) Sales R ate 1-5 2458 Rabbitsville Road 14.96 2,526 5/25/2020 $275,000 1-7 4338 Williams Road 7.72 2,914 8/19/2021 $302,000 2-2 361 Johnson Lane 1.00 2,666 5/18/2023 $217,500 2-5 309 3rd Street 1.21 2,664 3/2/2023 $252,000 2-10 1803 Linwood Drive 0.59 2,200 8/15/2022 $304,900 6/6/2018 $185,000 48.65% 24 1.69% 8/9/2018 $229,900 31.36% 36 0.75% 6/10/2022 $209,900 3.62% 11 0.32% 1/28/2019 $177,900 41.65% 49 0.71% 7/11/2019 $180,000 69.39% 37 1.43% 24 0.45% 36 0.72% 11 0.36% 49 0.75% 37 0.94% 28 1.08% 30 0.99% 2-11 6877 State Road 54W 1.62 2,600 10/31/2022 $332,500 2-13 508 Knoll Drive 1.01 2,778 5/8/2023 $450,000 6/22/2020 $172,000 93.31% 28 2.36% 10/29/2020 $350,000 28.57% 30 0.83% Median - Control Area Sales 1.21 2,664 0.83% 0.75% Conclusion When compared to the FHFA home price index for the 474 -zip code, the median extraction rate for the resale of Adjoining Property 10, that sold twice in the previous five years, exhibited a higher rate of appreciation than the Home Price Index for the 474 -zip code. Additionally, the monthly appreciation rate of the Adjoining Property 10 was in line with the median monthly appreciation rate of the Control Area Sales, as depicted by the far -right column in the tables above. As such, we have concluded that there does not appear to be a consistent detrimental impact on properties adjacent to the Spring Mill Solar Farm. Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ CohnReznick A 9 n . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .....••••••..® ■ ..•••••••••••••••1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 44 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • u u a • • • • • • • • • • • • u u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 SOLAR FARM 4: JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Coordinates: Latitude 39.859564, Longitude -105.1497 PIN: 29-194-01-037 Total Land Size: 13.63 acres Date Project Announced: November 2013 Date Project Completed: May 2016 Output: 1.2 MW AC The Jefferson County Community Solar Garden is adjacent to the Whisper Creek residential subdivision, just outside the City of Arvada, and was developed by SunShare Management. This solar farm has the capacity for 1.2 Megawatts (AC) of power, which is enough to power 300 homes. After two months of operation, the solar farm was 100 percent subscribed and its three largest customers are the cities of Arvada and Northglenn, as well as the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District. The Surrounding Area: The Whisper Creek subdivision is located between the Welton Reservoir to the west and Standley Lake to the east. To the northwest of the subdivision lies the Colorado Hills Open Space and the Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 45 ........................................................... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ I Rocky Flats national Wildlife Refuge. The subdivision is primarily in the City of Arvada city limits, but the municipal boundary splits the street the Test Area Sales are located on, West 89th Loop, some are in Arvada and some are in unincorporated Jefferson County. Arvada is a northwestern suburb of the City of Denver and is accessible via Interstate -25 and Interstate -70 and Interstate -76. The Immediate Area: The immediate area has uses that consist of vacant land to the north and east, a horse and alpaca farm to the south, known as Evening Star Farms, and single-family homes and a municipal police station and vacant land to the west. Real Estate Tax Information: In 2017, real estate taxes totaled $79.10 for the entire parcel for the year, which is slightly less than taxes billed in 2016 and 2015. The map below displays the solar farm parcel (outlined in yellow) and the Adjoining Properties (outlined in red) are numbered for subsequent analysis. Jefferson County Community Solar Garden - Adjoining Properties Aerial Imagery provided by Google Earth, dated May 2023 (Green Arrow- Direction of Photos on Following Page) PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS In reviewing Adjoining Properties to study in a Paired Sales Analysis, one property and sale was considered but eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 46 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 79 M f• 70 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 One adjoining residential property, Adjoining Property 11, was sold on June 7, 2022 for $900,000 or $446.21 per square foot of living area. Adjoining Property 11 is comprised of a single -story single family home with an unfinished basement and three -car attached garage, built in 2015 on a 0.21 -acre lot. We have not included the sale of Adjoining Property 11 after speaking with the selling broker, Thomas Barron of A+ Realty Group, who noted this was a non -arm's length transaction and the buyer and seller involved had traded properties to avoid the hard costs involved financing the purchase of either property. Mr. Barron also stated that the property was initially openly marketed and potential buyers were not concerned about the adjacent solar farm. We identified six Adjoining Properties that qualified for a paired sales analysis, Adjoining Properties 1, 5, 9 (sold twice), 10, 13 and 17. View from 89th Loop towards Solar Farm at rear of home Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 47 ........................................................... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ I View from the rear of a Test Area Sale, towards Solar Farm Group I — Improved Single -Family Residential Properties Adjoining Properties 1, 5 and 9 to the Jefferson County Community Solar project were considered for a paired sales analysis, and we have analyzed these properties as a single-family home use in Group 1. The properties are two-story single-family homes with two- and three -car attached garages and basement areas, ranging from 3,201 square feet to 3,461 square feet of living area and are located on lots under one -acre in size within the Whisper Creek subdivision. The improvements on these properties are located between approximately 725 feet and 950 feet to the nearest solar panel while the property lines are between approximately between 685 feet and 860 feet to the nearest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Properties 1, 5 and 9. Group SUMMARY I -Jefferson OF County TEST AREA SALES Community Solar Garden Sale Price 4P1I Beds Baths Year Bunt Home Size (SF)=s_, S Improvements 14;' �)YfK,I 1 8958 Devinney Ct $980,000 5 4.5 2011 3,201 2 -Story SFH with Finished Basement and 3 -Car Attached Garage 0.53 $306.15 Aug -20 5 8918 Devinney Court $895,000 4 3.5 2014 3,202 2 -Story Basement SFH with Unfinished and 3 -Car Attached Garage 0.39 $279.51 Nov -20 9 13929 W. 89th Loop $1,100,000 4 3.5 2016 3,461 2 -Story SFH with Unfinished Basement and 2 -Car Attached Garage 0.24 $317.83 Aug -21 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 48 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Jefferson County Community Solar Farm — Test Area Sale Map, Group I Je Jerson . County Solar We analyzed twelve Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were located within the Whisper Creek Subdivision and not adjacent to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale in Group 1. The Control Area Sales for Group 1 are two- story single-family homes located on lots less than 1.0 -acre in size with four to five bedrooms and three and a half to four and a half baths, consisting of between 2,700 square feet and 3,900 square feet of gross living area, and built between 2009 and 2016. The Control Area Sales also have additional improvements such as attached garage parking and basement areas. It is noted that while we searched for all home sales within these parameters, of the twelve Control Area Sales included in Group 1 only three have lot size above 0.30 -acres whereas, the three Test Area Sales had lots sizes of 0.53 -acres, 0.39 -acres and 0.24 -acres. Additionally, other potential Control Area Sales within the Whisper Creek subdivision with more comparable lot sizes to the Test Area Sales consisted of significant differences in bed and bath count or square feet of gross living area and have not been included in Group 1. The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeated -sales index measuring the average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for the Jefferson County Community Solar Project — Group 1 is presented on the following page. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 49 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Group 1 - Jefferson County Community Solar Garden No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Median ferSFI Price Test Area Sales (3) Adjoining solar farm $306.15 Control Area Sales (12) No: Not adjoining solar farm $270.00 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales 13.39% Noting no negative marketing time differential, Adjoining Properties 1, 5 and 9 sold after between 33 days and 106 days on the market, with a median time on market of 62 days, while the Control Area Sales sold between 12 and 271 days, with a median time on market of 58 days. Noting no negative price differential, with Adjoining Properties 1, 5 and 9 having a higher unit sale price than the Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Jefferson County Community Solar Farm had any negative impact on the sale of the Test Area Sale. We note that the Control Area Sales consisted of slightly smaller lot sizes, with a median lot size of 0.25 -acres compared to a median lot size of 0.39 -acres for the Test Area Sales, which likely explains the relative difference in adjusted median price per square foot. Group 2 — Improved Single -Family Residential Properties Adjoining Property 17 to the Jefferson County Community Solar project was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we have analyzed this property as a single-family home use on agricultural zoned land in Group 2. The property consists of two single -story dwellings totaling 4,675 square feet with attached garage parking and various outbuildings utilized for horse ranching, located on a 9.79 -acre lot and sold in August 2023. The improvements on this property are located approximately 80 feet to the nearest solar panel while the property line is approximately 30 feet to the nearest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 17. Group 2 SUMMARY - Jefferson OF TEST AREA SALE County Community Solar Garden Size Mr Improv Property . Address Sale Price •: Beds Baths Year Built Site Size (AC) Sale Price ! SF Sale Date. 17 8895 Alkire Street $1,650,000 4 2.5 1978 & 1987 4,675 Two Loafing Attached Basements; Single Shed, Tack -Story Garages Horse Paddocks Room SFH's and Arena, with No and 9.79 $352.94 Aug -23 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 50 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. ... . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 Jefferson County Community Solar Farm — Test Area Sale Map, Group 2 We analyzed four Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were located within Jefferson County or in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are single-family homes located on agricultural zoned land, located on lots in between 5.00 and 11.00 -acres in size, with three to four bedrooms and two to four baths, consisting of between 4,000 square feet and 4,700 square feet of gross living area, and built between 1972 and 1987. The Control Area Sales also have additional improvements such as garage parking, pole barns, workshops or outbuildings utilized for horse ranching . The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeated -sales index measuring the average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for the Jefferson County Community Solar Project — Group 2 is presented on the following page. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha -i.viiiiQQaili-i.I,iiv 1.49: u Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii Q d 5u l Gul Q .. Q Q lul ... 7' Iii ®® d■.®®®®.■■. 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 51 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Group CohnReznick 2 - Jefferson County Paired Community Sale Analysis Solar Garden No. of Sales Potentially Impacted Farm by Sola ' Adjusted Price Per Media SF Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining solar farm $352.94 Control Area Sales (4) No: Not adjoining solar farm $356.89 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted -1.11% Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales The marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales ranged from 75 to 736 days on market with a median of 90 days on market, and the marketing time for Adjoining Property 17 was 307 days, which is within the range of the Control Area Sales, and we note no substantial marketing time differential. Noting minimal negative price differential, it does not appear that the Jefferson County Community Solar Farm use impacted the sale of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 17. This was confirmed by the buying agent, Eugene Mitchell of Signature Real Estate Corp., who stated, "My client was not deterred from buying the property due to the adjacent solar farm. I have not seen an indication that the solar farm has any negative impact nor have I heard from other local brokers that it is a concern among potential buyers." Additionally, we discussed the marketing of Adjoining Property 17 with the listing agent, Asa Kortman of Keller Williams Realty, who stated, "The original list price of $2,300,000 was too aggressive but insisted upon by my client. After six months we decreased the list price to $1,600,000 in April of 2023 and the property attracted four competing offers, ultimately selling after 121 days and above the new listing price." The Test Area Sale is located on agricultural zoned land which restricts the potential uses on the land and limits higher density commercial or residential development. The selling party of the Test Area Sale set the original list price based on similarly sized properties with non-agricultural zoned land ultimately leading to a large decrease in list price after not attracting offers at $2,300,000. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 52 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u ............ • • • • • • MINI M • u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 Group 3 - Improved Single -Family Residential Properties Adjoining properties 9, 10 & 13 are two-story, single-family residential homes with four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms, between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet of gross living area, on less than 0.30 acre of land, and each sold in 2016 as new construction homes. Group 3 - Jefferson County Community Solar Garden est•ea aes Sale Median Price Site Median Size (ACS Median Beds Median Baths Median Median Square Feet Ai sale Median Date Price Median PSF Year Built 9, 10, 13 13929 W 89TH 13919 W 89TH 13889 W 89TH LOOP, LOOP, LOOP $635,500 0.23 4 3.5 2016 3,848 Jun -16 $165.15 The Test Area Sales are located between 595 feet and 720 feet from the house to the solar panels. We analyzed six Control Area Sales of single-family homes that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Test Area Sales and are similar to the Test Area Sales in physical characteristics. The Control Area Sales are removed from the solar panels and not adjoining, in other areas of the Whisper Creek subdivision. Jefferson County Community Solar Farm - Test Area Sale Map, Group 3 All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 53 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u ............ • • • • • • MINI M • u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 The results of our analyses for the Jefferson County Community Solar Garden are presented below. Group CohnReznick 3 - Jefferson County Paired Community Sale Analysis Solar Garden No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Price Median' Per SF� Test Area Sales (3) Adjoining solar farm $165.15 Control Area Sales (6) No: Not Adjoining solar farm $164.36 Difference Adjusted between Median Unit Unit Price Price of of Area Sales /Area Sales and Test Control Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Jefferson County Community Solar Garden had any negative impact on adjacent property values. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 54 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ir rul 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ^I" R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Before & After Analysis - Jefferson County Community Solar Farm We note a Test Area Sale in Groups 1 and 3 of the Jefferson County Community Solar Farm (Adjoining Property 9) has sold at least twice over approximately the past five years. To determine if any of the rates of appreciation for these identified home sales were affected by the proximity to the Jefferson County Community Solar Farm, we prepared a Repeat -Sales Analysis on the identified adjoining property. First, we calculated the total appreciation between each sale of the same property, the number of months that elapsed between each sale, and determined the monthly appreciation rate. Then, we compared extracted appreciation rates reflected in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Home Price Index for Colorado's 800 Three Digit Zip Code, where Adjoining Property 9 is located, over the same period. The index for the zip code is measured on a quarterly basis and is presented below. 800 Three Digit Tip Code - Housing Pricce Index Change (Quarter over Quarter) Not Seasonally Adjusted Year Quarter Index (NSA) ,l Three -Digit ZIP Code 800 2016 800 2016 800 2016 800 2016 800 2017 800 2017 800 2017 800 2017 800 2018 800 2018 800 2018 800 2018 800 2019 800 2019 800 2019 800 2019 800 2020 800 2020 800 2020 800 2020 800 2021 800 2021 800 2021 800 2021 800 2022 800 2022 800 2022 800 2022 800 2023 800 2023 800 2023 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 246.20 257.04 264.47 269.06 274.73 285.57 290.87 294.57 302.96 311.49 314.90 315.14 319.79 324.21 326.15 328.49 330.57 335.39 342.51 348.90 359.07 384.17 409.73 420.22 438.10 474.74 466.26 449.45 457.65 466.78 469.38 We have presented the full repeat sales analysis on the following page. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 55 ..................•••W W ••• .................. W ••• ... ON•• ............... W •••...................................., Repeat Sales Analysis B00 Three Digit Zip Code - FHFA Housing Price Index Land Total Most Most Months Monthly Index During of Most Level Quarter Recent Prior Quarter Index Sale Appreciation Total Appreciation Monthly Rate Property Finished Address Area Recent Recent Sale Prior Sale Prior Sale Total Elapsed Appreciation ID Living Area (Acres) Sale Date Price Date Price Appreciation Between Rate (SF) Sales Sale Level 9 13929 W. 89th Loop 0.53 3,461 8/10/2021 $1,100,000 6/17/2016 $636,332 72.87% 62 0.89% 409.73 257.04 59.40% 0.76% Conclusion When compared to the FHFA home price index for the 800 -zip code, the extraction rate for the resale of Adjoining Property 9, that sold twice times in the previous five years, exhibited a higher rate of appreciation than the Home Price Index for the 800 -zip code. As such, we have concluded that there does not appear to be a consistent detrimental impact on properties adjacent to the Jefferson County Community Solar Farm. Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CohnReznickco ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ R9 UUU■■■■■■U•UU•U■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t__ AM E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 56 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u u m u • • a ...... • u II • • • • WEIN • • • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 SOLAR FARM 5: DTE LAPEER SOLAR PROJECT, LAPEER, MICHIGAN Coordinates: Latitude 43.0368219316, Longitude -83.3369986251 PI Ns: L20-95-705-050-00, L20-98-008-003-00 Total Land Size: ±365 Acres Date Project Announced: 2016 Date Project Completed: May 2017 Output: 48.28 MW AC Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■07 " ‘111■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t Page I 57 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 The Surrounding Area: The DTE Lapeer solar farm is located just south of the City of Lapeer, in Lapeer County, Michigan and is a joint project between the City of Lapeer and DTE Electric Company. The solar farm was developed with Inovateus Solar MI, LLC to meet Michigan renewable energy standards. The solar farm features over 200,000 panels, a power output of 48.28 MW AC, and produces enough energy to power 14,000 homes. The Lapeer solar project was developed in two phases: the Demille Solar installation and the Turrill Solar installation. For purposes of our study, taken together, both installations are considered one solar farm. DTE's Lapeer Solar Projects Demille and Turrill Solar installations Pb all!AII1W PIO Ycurics Lake —Beth Dr Turrill Rd -- J MeeorII m7k Lapeer is considered to be in the Tri-Cities area of central Michigan and is approximately 21 miles east of the City of Flint. Interstate -69 serves Lapeer and runs east -west just south of the solar farm. The two phases of the solar installation are on the east and west sides of Michigan State Route 24 from each other. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. u Gul s d lul d 5 Gulha -1110.9 '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 58 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I 1..11i) i) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 The Immediate Area: Land uses surrounding the Demille installation include a correctional facility and industrial uses to the west, buffered by a mature stand of trees, a retail center to the northeast, other commercial uses to the east along MI-24/South Lapeer Road, and residential homes to the southeast. Interstate -69 runs south of the Demille solar installation. The Turrill installation is surrounded to the north by a residential subdivision, to the north and east by industrial uses, to the south by vacant land and residential homes, and to the west by light commercial and professional uses along MI-24/South Lapeer Road. Hunter's Creek divides two sets of solar arrays in the Turrill installation. The Demille installation adjoins Interstate -69 to the South; while a residential subdivision adjoins the solar farm to the east. To the northeast corner of the solar panels is a senior living facility, Stonegate Health Campus, developed before the solar facility. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to the development of the solar farm, the land under the Demille and Turrill solar installations were municipal -owned and were not subject to property tax. After development, in 2017, the land became taxable and taxes were $82,889 total, as shown below. 'PIN Acres Lapeer County, MI L20-98-008-003-00* 110.84 L20-95-705-050-00* 254.84 TOTAL 365.68 2016 lu Taxes Paid ili 2017 LE Taxes Paid Tax Increase $ - $ - $ 34,294 $ 48,595 N/A N/A $ - $ 82,889 N/A 2016 Assessed 2017 Assessed Value Value I Value Increase $ - $ 726,700 N/A $ - $ 1,029,750 N/A $ - $ 1,756,450 N/A * Prior to development as a solar farm, the parcels were municpal property without a taxable value. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 59 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••r7 "" M M II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ " ^ m n n n ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ NNE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS The maps, below, and on the following pages display properties adjoining the solar sites that are numbered in red for subsequent analysis. Demille Solar Farm • DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Demille Adjoining Properties See Detailed Map on the Following Page Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 60 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. ... . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Demille Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. u Q ai Gul ha is d Iv Q ai WI ha vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha ii Q d 5u l Gul i .. l;i Q lul ... 7' lli ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 61 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 Turrill Solar Farm DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Turrill Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n Rez n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha -i.viiiiQQaili-i.I,iiv 1.49: u Q ai 41 ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai 41 ha Q ii Q d 5u l Gul Q .. Q Q lul .■■ ..... ■ ... ■ ... ■. 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 62 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. ... . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Turrill Adjoining Properties In reviewing Adjoining Properties to study in a Paired Sale Analysis, several properties and sales were considered but eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha -i.viiiiQQaili-i.I,iiv 1.49: u Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii Q d 5u l Gul Q .. Q Q lul ... 7' Iii ®® d■.®®®®.■■. 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 63 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 We identified eight Adjoining Properties that sold since the solar farm started operations in May of 2017: Adjoining Properties 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16 for the Demille Solar Farm, and Adjoining Properties 3 and 4 for the Turrill Solar Farm. Of these properties, three were considered atypical for the area. Adjoining Property 7 adjacent to the Denville Solar farm is a split-level home with a finished walk out basement with a pool. The typical home in the area has a traditional basement and pools are atypical. The unusual nature of this sale was confirmed with the selling broker, Renee Voss (see comments below). We note that this home sold twice after the construction of the solar farm, once in September 2018 and again in August 2019. The appreciate rate between the two sale dates are analyzed further later in this section. Adjoining Property 16 just south of the Demille Solar Farm is a 10.1 -acre lot that is buffered by trees. The home is atypical for the area, as most homes are situated on lots between 1 -acre and 1.5 -acres in size and were built before 1980; this home was built in 2008. We interviewed the broker Josh Holbrook (see comments below) who confirmed the atypical nature of this property. Adjoining Property 3, just west of the Turrill Solar Farm, was a ranch home with 1,348 square feet on a lot that was just over one acre. Comparables for homes of this size, type, and lot size were not available in the immediate market area. It should be noted that the price per square foot for this home ($108.01) is significantly higher than median price per square foot of either data set we studied. As a part of our research, we interviewed three local real estate brokers that sold homes adjacent to the Lapeer Solar farm. According to the brokers, there was no impact on the home prices or marketability due to the homes' proximity to the solar arrays. Renee Voss of Coldwell Banker, selling broker of the raised ranch at 1138 Don Wayne Drive (Adjoining Property 7), which is adjacent to the Demille solar farm at the southeast corner, noted that there was no impact on this sale from the solar farm located to the rear. The home, which has a pool in the backyard, sold quickly with multiple offers, Voss stated. Josh Holbrook, the selling broker of 1408 Turrill Road (known as Adjoining Property 16), located just south of the Demille Solar Farm, said the solar farm had no impact on the sale and that the community takes pride in the solar farm. Anne Pence of National Realty Centers, the selling broker for 1126 Don Wayne Drive, a single-family home adjacent to the Demille solar farm (known as Test Area Sale 9), reported that "the solar farm did not have any effect on the sale of this home. The buyers did not care one bit about the solar field in the back yard. The fact is that you know no one is going to be behind you when they develop a solar farm in your back yard. And [sometimes the developer] put up trees to block the view. My in-laws also actually live at end of that street, even though they haven't sold or put their house on market, they don't mind the solar panels either. Ifs not an eyesore. And another house sold on that block, a raised ranch home, and it sold with no problems." Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 64 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ir P^ I"" n.M !I i)■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M I, F 1. , . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . •••••••••I GROUP 1 — DEMILLE Adjoining Properties 3, 4, and 9 to the Demille Solar Farm were considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed these properties as single-family home uses in Group 1. The improvements on these properties are located between 275 to 305 feet to the nearest solar panel. Group es s 1 - ea Demille aes Solar I.MJ. Property# sal Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Median Price PSF ill Sale Date 3, 4, 9 1174 1126 Alice Don Dr, 1168 Wayne Alice Drive Dr' $165,000 0.50 3 2.0 1973 1,672 Jan -19 $105.26 We analyzed six Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Test Area Sales in Group 1. The Control Area Sales for Group 1 are ranch homes with three bedrooms and one and a half to two bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank -owned, and those between related parties. Lapeer Solar-Demille - Group 1: Test Area Sales Map Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 65 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ u 1,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t :••••••••••••••••1 Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat -sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project - Group 1-Demille is presented on the below. CohnReznick Group DTE 1 Paired Lapeer - Denville Sale Solar Solar Analysis No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Median per Price SF Area Sales (3) Adjoining solar farm $105.26 Test Control Area Sales (6) No: Not adjoining solar farm $99.64 Difference Price Price 5.65% Adjusted between Median Unit Unit of of Area Area Sales Sales and Control Test The days on market for the three Test Area Sales had a median of 29 days on market (ranging from 5 to 48 days), while the median days on market for the Control Area Sales was 21 days (ranging from 5 to 224 days), and we note no substantial marketing time differential. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gut s d WI haha�i d 5u Gut ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lit ® ® ll ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 66 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u • • • • NI • • II II • u a u u u ...... u u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ • IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 GROUP 2 — DEMILLE Adjoining Property 10 to the Demille Solar Farm was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use in Group 2. The improvements on this property are located approximately 315 to the nearest solar panel. G Group Test Area 2 - Demille Sale Solar :edrooms Bathrooms Built/Renovated Year Squar Feet 10 1120 Don Wayne Drive, Lapeer $194,000 0.47 3 2.5 1976/2006 1,700 Above Ground Pool, Two Car Garage Nov -19 $114.12 We analyzed five Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are similarly sized homes in Lapeer County with three to four bedrooms and one and half to three bathrooms, with an above -ground pool, and an attached garage. We excluded sales that were bank -owned, and those between related parties. gliMtra 0 Control Area Sales were adjusted Group.2:torpmarketrconaitionTest Federal dousin Finance Agency's House J g g Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat -sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 67 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project - Group 2 is presented below. CohnReznick Group Paired Lapeer - Denville Sale Solar Solar Analysis DTE 2 No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by � Adjusted Median Per Price SF , Area Sales (1) Adjoining solar farm $114.12 Test Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $113.01 Difference Adjusted between Median Unit Unit Price Price of of Test Control Area Area Sales Sales and 0.98% The marketing time for the Test Area Sales was 90 days on market, while the median marketing time for the Control Area Sales was 34 days (ranging from 3 to 73 days). We note the Test Area Sale was initially listed above its market value, as there was a listing price decline after a month on the market. We also note that after the final decrease of the list price, the Test Area Sale home was only on the market 51 more days, which is within the range exhibited by the Control Area Sales. GROUP 3 ® TURRII, Adjoining Property 4 to the Turrill Solar Farm was analyzed separately since it is a two-story home on a larger lot than the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The home on Adjoining Property 4 is 290 feet from the property line to the nearest solar panel. Group Test Area 3 - Turrill Sale Solar Adj. 11 Property Address Median edian Site Size (AC)i. Median Beds Media Baths Median Year to Median tareisi t Median Median# Date ale Price Price PSF guilte 4 1060 Cliff Drive $200,500 1.30 4 2.5 1970 2,114 Sep -18 $94.84 We analyzed four single-family homes as Control Area Sales with similar construction that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 4. The Control Area Sales for Group 3 are two-story homes with two to four bedrooms and 2.5 to 3 bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank -owned, and those between related parties. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 68 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. ... . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 DTE Lapeer Solar-Turrill - Group 3: Test Area Sales Map Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat -sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project-Turrill — Group 3 is presented on the following page. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d di di ai WI ha d vd d d di ai 41 d d d d d 9: d d di ai Gul ha d is d Idl di ai WI ha d ivd d di di ai Gul d d id d d d di d li 4- l d .. Id di li WI ia d d ... III IA ® LW ■ . II ® It ® . ■ ■ MI Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 69 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 CohnReznick Group DTE Paired Lapeer 3 - Turrill Sale Solar Solar Analysis No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by' Adjusted Median Price Per SF Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining solar farm $94.84 Control Area Sales (4) No: Not adjoining solar farm $96.32 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales The marketing time for the Test Area Sale was two days on market, while the median days on market for the Control Area Sales was 35 days (ranging from 11 to 177 days), and we note no negative marketing time differential. Noting no significant price differential in any of the three groups, it does not appear that the DTE Lapeer Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 70 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r 7 7 7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 BEFORE & AFTER ANALYSIS - DEMILLE SOLAR PROJECT We note two of the Test Area Sales in Group 1 of the Demille Solar project (Adjoining Properties 4 and 9), one sale in Group 2 of the Demille Solar farm (Adjoining Property 10), as well as Adjoining Property 7 have sold at least twice over the past 15 years. To determine if any of the rates of appreciation for these identified home sales were affected by the proximity to the Demille Solar farm, we prepared a Repeat -Sales Analysis on each identified adjoining property. First, we calculated the total appreciation between each sale of the same property, the number of months that elapsed between each sale, and determined the monthly appreciation rate. Then, we compared extracted appreciation rates reflected in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Home Price Index for Michigan's 48446 zip code (where the identified homes are located) over the same period. The index for zip codes is measured on a yearly basis and is presented below. 48446 Zip Code - Housin • Price Index Chan • e Year over Year Not Seasonall Ad'usted Five -Digit ZIP Code Year Annual Change (%) HPI HPI with 1990 base HPI with 2000 base 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 48446 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2.02 3.68 - 1.76 - 6.35 - 8.37 -10.62 - 8.94 - 6.89 0.29 7.27 7.10 5.10 6.10 6.74 5.96 5.74 4.99 438.38 454.53 446.53 418.17 383.17 342.49 311.86 290.37 291.22 312.39 334.56 351.63 373.08 398.23 421.96 446.17 468.43 206.29 213.89 210.12 196.78 180.31 161.16 146.75 136.64 137.04 147.00 157.43 165.47 175.56 187.39 198.56 209.95 220.43 111.35 115.45 113.42 106.22 97.33 86.99 79.21 73.75 73.97 79.35 84.98 89.32 94.76 101.15 107.18 113.33 118.98 We have presented the full repeat sales analysis on the following page. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 71 ..................•••WW•••...................... •WEI....W•••MNIWEINIENIN ...WIE•..•m•.........................., Repeat Sales Analysis 48446 Zip Code - FHFA House Price Index Change Land Total Most Most Months Monthly Index During of Recent Most Level Year Sale Prior Year Index Level Sale Appreciation Total Appreciation Monthly Rate Property Address Area Finished Recent Recent Sale Prior Sale Prior Sale Total Elapsed Appreciation ID (Acres) Living Area Sale Date Price Date Price Appreciation Between Rate (SF) Sales 4 1168 Alice Drive 0.46 1,672 10/9/2019 $176,000 12/8/2017 $144,000 22.22% 22 0.92% 446.17 398.23 12.04% 0.52% 398.23 238.05 67.29% 0.18% 446.17 418.17 6.70% 0.05% 446.17 334.56 33.36% 0.47% 446.17 334.56 33.36% 0.60% 446.17 446.17 0.00% 0.00% 4 1168 Alice Drive 0.46 1,672 12/8/2017 $144,000 10/1/1993 $100,000 44.00% 290 0.13% 9 1126 Don Wayne Drive 0.50 1,900 5/21/2018 $160,000 10 1120 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 1,700 11/8/2019 $194,000 7 1138 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 2,128 9/7/2018 $179,900 12/21/2007 10/15/2014 $173,200 8/22/2014 $119,000 34.45% 125 0.24% 12.01% 61 0.19% $148,500 21.14% 49 0.40% 7 1138 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 2,128 8/28/2019 $191,000 9/7/2018 $179,900 6.17% 12 0.51% Median - Test Area Sales 0.47 1,800 0.32% Median - Before/After 0.49 2,019 0.21% 0.33% 0.11% Conclusion When compared to the FHFA home price index for the local zip code, the median monthly appreciation rate of the sales of properties adjoining the Demille Solar Farm that sold before construction of the solar farm and again after construction of the solar farm outperformed the median for the zip code, as depicted in the far -right column in the table above (and highlighted in orange). Additionally, the extracted appreciation rate for the resales of Adjoining Properties 4 and 7, that sold twice after the solar farm was constructed, exhibited higher rates of appreciation than the Home Price Index for the zip code (highlighted in white). As such, we have concluded that there does not appear to be a consistent detrimental impact on the value of properties adjacent to the DTE Lapeer-Demille Solar Farm. Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CohnReznickco ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ R9 UUU■■■■■■U•UU•U■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t__ AM E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 72 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ GNU ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 SOLAR FARM 6: DOMINION INDY SOLAR III, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 39°39'14.16"N, Longitude 86°15'35.06"W PIN: 49-13-13-113-001.000-200 Total Land Size: 129 acres Date Project Announced: August 2012 Date Project Completed: December 2013 Output: 8.6 MW AC (11.9 MW DC) The Dominion Indy III solar farm was developed by Dominion Renewable Energy and became operable in December 2013. This solar farm has ground -mounted solar panels and has the capacity for 8.6 Megawatts (MW) AC of power. The panels are mounted in a fixed tilt fashion with 12 inverters. The Surrounding Area: The Dominion Indy III solar farm is located in Decatur Township, in the southwest portion of Marion County, Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 10 miles southeast of the Indianapolis International Airport and approximately eight and a half miles from the center of Indianapolis. The Immediate Area: The solar installation is on the southern side of West Southport Road. Adjoining parcels to the west, south, and east are agricultural in nature, actively farmed primarily with row crops and large areas of mature trees. There is one single family home on 4.78 acres of land at the northwest corner of the solar site, with frontage on West Southport Road, identified in our analysis as Adjoining Property 9. To the north, across West Southport Road from the solar site, is the single-family residential subdivision known as Crossfield. Originally developed with over 81 acres of land by the Key Life Insurance Company, the one- and two-story homes in the subdivision were built between approximately 1998 and 2011. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural or residential purposes. The solar farm is surrounded by a chain link fence around all of the solar panels. Additionally, there are some natural shrubs and trees on all sides of the property; this vegetation was in place before the solar farm was developed. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 73 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Irr� ��,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■We' r ■■■■■■■■■■WW1 Dominion Indy III - Adjoining Properties Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2013, the owner of this 129 -acre site paid real estate taxes of $1,788 annually. After development of the solar farm development, in 2015, real estate taxes increased to approximately $16,405, an 818 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. PIN Acres 49-13-13-113-001.000-200 Marion County, IN 129.04 TOTAL 129.04 2013 Taxes Paid 2015 Taxesr Paid aslncrease Tax $ 1,788 $ 16,405 818% $ 1,788 $ 16,405 818°/ 2013 Assessed Value 2015 A Assessed Value Increases Value $ 89,400 $ 109,900 23% $ 89,400 $ 109,900 23% The map below, and the maps on the following pages, display the parcels within the solar farm is located (outlined in blue). Properties adjoining this site are numbered for subsequent analysis. 2 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. u Gul a d lul id d 5 Gul d d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul d ■ ® ® '-" lil ® ® d ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 74 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r 7 7 M 11 7 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r i, r R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered two types of paired sales analysis with regards to the Dominion Indy III solar farm. The first compares sales of Adjoining Properties (Test Area Sales) to the solar farm after the completion of the solar farm site to similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales). We utilized this type of paired sale analysis for all three groups of Adjoining Properties under study. The second type of paired sale analysis is known as a Before and After analysis which compares sales of Adjoining Properties that occurred prior to the announcement of the solar farm with the sales of the same Adjoining Properties after the completion of the solar farm development. We were able to use home sale data from the Crossfield subdivision that is located to the north of the solar site, across West Southport Road, for this analysis. GROUP 1 Adjoining Property 2 is a vacant 86.96 -acre agricultural parcel located to the east of the solar site. Adjoining Property 2 sold in October 2017 and was considered for a paired sale analysis, known as a Test Area Sale, in Group 1. The property line of this unimproved parcel is approximately 166 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 12. Group Test 1 Area - Agricultural Sale Land Adjoining AL Property AL AL 1 Address Site Size (AC) Jndex NCCPI Wetlands Floodplarn - Price/AC Sale Sale Date Sale Price S AL Adjoining Property 2 5755 W Southport Indianapolis, IN Rd, $738,584 89.96 63.4 1% Zone X $8,210 Oct -17 Soil Productivity and Land Value Trends and the NCCPI Productivity Index Crop yields have been the basis for establishing a soil productivity index, and are used by county assessors, farmers, and market participants in assessing agricultural land. While crop yields are an integral part in assessing soil qualities, it is not an appropriate metric to rely on because "yields fluctuate from year to year, and absolute yields mean little when comparing different crops. Productivity indices provide a single scale on which soils may be rated according to their suitability for several major crops under specified levels of management such as an average level."1 The productivity index, therefore, not crop yields, is best suited for applications in land appraisal and land -use planning. The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) developed and utilizes the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) as a national soil interpreter and is used in the National Soil Information System (NASIS), but it is not intended to replace other crop Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI haha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 75 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■RI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 production models developed by individual states.' The focus of the model is on identifying the best soils for the growth of commodity crops, as the best soils for the growth of these crops are generally the best soils for the growth of other crops.19 The NCCPI model describes relative productivity ranking over a period of years and not for a single year where external influences such as extreme weather or change in management practices may have affected production. At the moment, the index only describes non -irrigated crops, and will later be expanded to include irrigated crops, rangeland, and forestland productivity.20 Yields are influenced by a variety of different factors including environmental traits and management inputs. Tracked climate and soil qualities have been proven by researchers to directly explain fluctuations in crop yields, especially those qualities that relate to moisture -holding capacity. Some states such as Illinois have developed a soil productivity model that considers these factors to describe "optimal" productivity of farmed land. Except for these factors, "inherent soil quality or inherent soil productivity varies little over time or from place to place for a specific soil (map unit component) identified by the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS)."21 The NRCS Web Soil Survey website has additional information on how the ratings are determined. The State of Indiana does not have its own crop production model and utilizes the NCCPI. In analyzing agricultural land sales for Control Area Sales with similar characteristics to Adjoining Property 2, we have excluded any parcels with NCCPI soil indices less than 50.0 and greater than 85.0. We identified and analyzed four Control Area Sales that were comparable in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. The Control Area Sales for Adjoining Property 2 are land tracts that were larger than 20 acres and utilized specifically as farmland. We excluded sales that were bank -owned, those between related parties, split transactions, and land with significant improvements. The Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. 18 Agricultural land rental payments are typically tied to crop production of the leased agricultural land and is one of the primary reasons the NCCPI was developed, especially since the model needed to be consistent across political boundaries. 19 Per the User Guide for the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index, the NCCPI uses natural relationships of soil, landscape and climate factors to model the response of commodity crops in soil map units. The present use of the land is not considered in the ratings. 20 AgriData Inc. Docs: http://support.agridatainc.com/NationalCommodityCropProductivitylndex(NCCPI).ashx 21 USDA NRCS's User Guide National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 76 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Dominion Indy III - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using a regression and trend analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. Using the agricultural land sale data published in the Land Sales Bulletin, 22 from January 2016 through December 2017, which includes reliable and credible data for analysis, we extracted a monthly rate of change of 0.50 percent. The results of our analysis for Adjoining Property 2, in Group 1 are presented on the following page. 22 https://www.landsalesbulletin.com/ Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. u Gul a d lul id d ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 77 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 CohnReznick Group Dominion 1 Paired - Agricultural Indy III Sale Analysis Solar Land No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Acre Price Per (Adjoining Test Area Property Sale 2) Yes: Solar Farm sale was date completed by the $8,210 Control Area Sales (4) No: Not adjoining solar farm $8,091 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale Price of Control Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit 1.47% Noting the relatively low price differential, in which the Test Area Sale was higher than the median for the Control Areas Sales, it does not appear that the Dominion Indy III solar farm had any negative impact on the adjoining agricultural property value. 11 10 12 13 rstic Pa Itiv: - mtbey i ---- -I To 14 17 16 15 • ELO 4 19 18 21 J[23 Indy III Solar til 25 l Dominion Indy III Solar - Adjoining Properties We idenitified a total of nine Adjoining Properties that sold after the develoment of the solar farm as single-family home uses. Adjoining Properties 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 were analyzed in two paired sales analyses (Group 2 and Group 3). These nine properties were analyzed as single-family homes and they are located in the Crossfield subdivision, across West Southport Road from the solar site, as seen in the map above. It should be noted that Adjoining Properties 11 and 24 have sold more than once since the solar farm was constructed, and each sale is included in the analysis. Adjoining Property 11 sold first in December 2015 and Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 78 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ir MA 7 " 1 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ m later in July 2018, approximately two and a half years later. Adjoining Property 24 sold first in February 2014 and later in April 2019, approximately five years later. Our research indicated that these were arm's -length sales. The nine Adjoining Properties that were included in our paired sales analysis were divided into two groups, based on the sale dates of the Test Area Sales. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 79 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MrnrM1171I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■rte 77 R■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 GROUP 2 For Group 2 (sales in 2014 — 2016), we analyzed four Control Area Sales with similar location, square footages, lot sizes, and ages that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Group 2 Test Area Sales. est Group i -a a 2 -s Median Median Site Median Median Median Median Median Median Adj. Property Address Sale Price Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Square Feet Sale Date Price PSF 11, 20, 22, 24 5933 5813 Sable Sable Dr, 5829 Sable Dr, 5737 Sable Dr, Dr $129,375 0.23 4 2.0 2008 2,163 Jul -15 $60.61 The Test Area Sales in Group 2 are located between 230 feet and 404 feet from the house to the solar panels. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are located beyond this area in other areas of the Crossfield Division and in other nearby subdivisions. Dominion Indy III — Group 2: Test Area Sales Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. u Gul a d lul id 4-1 ■ ■ 6ii lul d ■ ■ ■ III ® ® d ■ ■ ® ® It ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 80 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IrP^ "" " 1 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ rl 77 7 n n ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 GROUP 3 For Group 3 (sales occurring in 2017 - 2019), we analyzed a set of seven Control Area Sales with similar locations, square footages, lot sizes, and ages that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Group 3 Test Area Sales. Dominion Indy III Solar Test Area Sales Group 3 11,13,14,15 18, 24, 26 5933 Sable Dr, 5921 Sable Dr, 5915 Sable Dr, 5909 Sable Dr, 5841 Sable Dr, 5737 Sable Dr, 5731 Sable Dr Median Sale Price $169,900 Median Site Size (AC) 0.23 Median Median Beds Baths 3 2.5 Median Year Built 2006 Median Square Feet 2,412 Median Sale Date Jul -18 Median Price PSF $72.15 The Test Area Sales in Group 3 are located between 227 feet and 419 feet from the house to the solar panels. The Control Area Sales are located beyond this area, in other areas of the Crossfield Division, and in other nearby subdivisions. Dominion Indy III — Group 3: Test Area Sales Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. u Gul a d lul id d 5 Gul d d 5u Gul 1 ® lul d ® ® ® '-" lil ® ® d ■ M ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ MI Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 81 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ u 1,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t :••••••••••••••••1 Control Area Sales in Groups 2 and 3 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Dominion Group Indy III 2 Solar r No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by I Median Adjusted Price Per SF Test Area Sales (4) Adjoining solar farm $60.61 Control Area Sales (8) No: Not adjoining solar farm $57.84 4.78% Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Dominion Group Paired Indy III 3 Sale Solar Analysis No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Median Price per SF Test Area Sales (7) Adjoining solar farm $72.15 Control Area Sales (11) No: Not adjoining solar farm $71.69 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and 0.65% Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales The Test Area Sales in Group 2 sold between 18 and 75 days on market (0-3 months), while the Control Area Sales in Group 2 sold between 2 and 649 days on market (0-23 months). The Test Area Sales in Group 3 sold between 3 and 75 days on market (0-3 months), while the Control Area Sales in Group 3 sold between 2 and 89 days on market (0-3 months). Noting the relatively low price differentials, it does not appear that the Dominion Indy III solar farm had any negative impact on adjoining residential property values. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: u Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d 5u Gul ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 82 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLAR FARM ANALYSIS Due to the number of sales over time in the Crossfield subdivision, we were able to conduct an analysis on the prices of single-family homes before the solar farm announcement date in comparison to the prices of single- family homes after the construction of the Dominion Indy III solar farm. This analysis shows the appreciation rates of homes in the subdivision over the period before the solar farm was announced to after construction was complete. If there were a difference in the appreciation rates of homes within the Test Area (homes adjoining the solar farm) from the homes within the Control Areas (homes not adjoining the solar farm), we would expect to see it in the results of this analysis. We have provided our conclusions from the analysis below, and the following page displays an explanatory chart. • The Before the Announcement of the solar farm period is from 2006 to July 2012. The After Construction of the solar farm period is from December 2013 to 2019. • 25 Test Area Sales were sold from 2006 to 2019 and 46 Control Area Sales sold from 2008 to 2019. The Test Area Sales are homes located adjoining the Dominion Indy III Solar Farm in the Crossfield subdivision ➢ The Control Area Sales are homes located in the remainder of the Crossfield subdivision, not adjoining the solar farm. • In both the Test Area Sales (ORANGE) and Control Area Sales (BLUE) plotted on the chart on the following page, new construction homes sold through 2011, prior to announcement of the solar farm. • The dotted lines are polynomial trend lines plotted by Microsoft Excel in order to illustrate and approximate the "average" trend of each set of data. • After construction of the solar farm, in parallel with the improving economic climate (as depicted by the Red lines representing the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index for the East North Central region that includes Indiana), it appears that unit prices for both the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales appreciated at a similar rate over the period from 2013 to 2019. • The economic climate improved in the period from 2013 to 2019, as shown by the Red line representing the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index for the East North Central region that includes Indiana. After construction of the solar farm, in parallel with the improving economic climate, it appears that unit prices for both the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales appreciated at a similar rate over the period from 2013 to 2019. A difference in appreciation rates does not appear to exist between Test Area Sale homes versus the Control Area Sale homes. Sale prices of single-family homes after the construction of the solar farm exhibit a similar appreciation trend as sales prior to the solar farm announcement. Overall, our findings indicate that there is not a consistent and measurable difference in prices that exists in association with homes proximate to the Dominion Indy III solar farm Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha -i.viiiiQQaili-i.I,iiv 1.49: u Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii Q d 5u l Gul Q .. Q Q lul ... 7' III ®® d■.®®®®.■■. 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 83 .................••••••...............IN••••...MME ..... MME ..•III• M ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•....••.......•••••••••......, ANALYSIS OF BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOMINION INDY III SOLAR FAR $80.00 $75.00 a J $70.00 Q CD 0) a tin $65.00 J LL 4- O 0 $60.00 co Q a $55.00 a c� Vr a au (1/3 $50.00 Dominion Indy III - Crossfield Subdivision: Test Area vs Control Area Comparison of Unit Sale Prices from 2006 to 2019 1 alk • • 4 4 • 1 • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • SW • • • • • • Construction Period ••. 1 • •• • • • •• • • • • •' • • d • • • ♦ • 215.00 205.00 195.00 m T 185.00 N -v Fs' 175.00 m a CD x 165.00 : a) 155.00 1-6 145.00 0 135.00 $45.00 125.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 FHFA House Price Index East North Central (Includes IN) • Test Area • Control Area Median Unit Price Median Unit Price • • • • Poly. (Test Area • • • • Poly. (Control Area Median Unit Price) Median Unit Price) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC, and the client's legal and site development professionals), and purpose CohnReznickf� stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ADVISORY• ASSURANCE• TAX WI IN . • .IN IN . IN III • . IN WI IN . • .IM. . IN III • . . MI . IN . • .IN . MI . IN III • . IN WI IN . • .IM. . IN III • . . MI . IN . • .IN . MI . IN III • . IN WI IN . • .IM. . IN III • . . MI . IN . • .IN . MI . IN III • . IN . MI . II IN P repared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 84 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 S OLAR FARM 7: SUNFISH FARM SOLAR, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Coordinates: Latitude 35 33.457, Longitude 78 44.190 P IN: 675874971 Total Land Size: Approximately 49.6 acres Date Project Completed: December 2015 Output: 5 MW AC This Sunfish Farm solar facility is located in the southern portion of Wake County, North Carolina, approximately 16 miles south of Raleigh. The solar facility was placed into service in December 2015 and has a power generating capacity of 5 MW AC. The solar facility was developed by Cypress Creek Renewables, which has built several community -scale solar farms in North Carolina. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d di Q li WI d I'd d Q Q li Gul d d I'd d d d id Q ai Gul is d Iii Q li WI d I'd d di Q li Gul d d I'd d d d d id 41 - .. I;i Q li lul ... III ® ® d ■ . ® ® It ® . ■ ■ MI Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 85 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Gtr^Ir'7MP171I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■(Erin ^ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 The Surrounding Area: The Sunfish Farm solar facility is surrounding by single family homes, some of which are in subdivisions, as well as agricultural and forest land. The local area is accessible from Raleigh via Fayetteville Road (US Hwy 401) and Interstate 40. The Sunfish Farm solar farm is located southwest of the town of Fuquay-Varina, which has experienced considerable population growth over the past 10 years due to the area's proximity to Research Triangle Park (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill). The Immediate Area: The solar farm is buffered from residences and road frontages by trees and is surrounded by fencing. The solar farm is clearly visible from the roadways. Immediate land uses surrounding the solar farm include residential homes to the north, some residential homes (some that also contain commercial uses) to the west, agricultural land to the south, and agricultural land and residential homes to the east. There is an 11.25 -acre carve -out of land in the original, larger farmland parcel that was split from the parent parcel in 2014, as pictured below. Both the carved out parcel and the solar farm parcel are owned by an individual who leases the land for the solar farm use. Real Estate Tax Information: Solar farms in North Carolina are assessed as personal property, separate from the land assessment. After the solar farm was placed into service, there was an increase of 180 percent in total assessed value, and 203 percent increase in total taxes paid. Acres Wake 675874971 Personal County, Property (Post NC 2015 Tax Split) 49.60 TOTAL 49.60 2013 Paid Acre) 2016 in. Paid Taxe. Acre) Tax increase Taxe (Per (Per $ 119.52 $ 105.33 $ - $ 256.81 $ 119.52 $ 362.14 203% kr 2013 Value Assessed (Per 2016 Value Assessed (Per Value Acre) Acre) Increase $ 18,589 $ 15,123 $ - $ 36,871 $ 18,588.83 $ 51,994.82 180% Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1171II■■■■■..■■.■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■ t Page I 86 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 The map below displays the properties adjoining the solar arrays and are numbered for subsequent analysis (outlined in yellow). Sunfish Farm Solar - Adjoining Properties PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered only one type of paired sales analysis, comparing sales of properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales) to the sales of adjoining properties (Test Area Sales) after the completion of the solar farm project. We were able to identify two Adjoining Properties to the Sunfish Farm solar facility that sold after the solar installation was placed into service (Adjoining Properties 10 and 15). These sales were analyzed in separate Test Area Sale groups based on home type (conventional single-family home and manufactured single-family home) and sale dates. We collected Control Area Sale data from the Wake County Real Estate database which summarizes data directly from the Real Estate Assessor website for the county. We have also reviewed other public records and verified marketing information through online sources such as Zillow.com, Redfin.com, Realtor.com and Estately.com. We have verified these sales through county records, conversations with brokers, and the County Assessor's Office. We excluded sales that were not arm's length, such as REO sales or bank -owned properties, or those between related parties. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI ha ha -1110.9 '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 87 •aIll sam•u•u•u......•III am••su•uau.... Ill .......•uauuu......uuu••Ill a•••• ••• •••su•• •••• ...amuuu•i GROUP 1 Adjoining Property 10 (Test Area Sale 1) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use. The property is a single -story 1,470 square foot home located on a 0.79 - acre lot that sold in September 2017. This property line is approximately 50 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 200 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. Test Sale 1 Adjoining Property 10 7513 Glen Willow Court $188,000 0.79 3 2 1989 1,470 One -Story, No Basement $127.89 Sep -17 We have identified 14 single-family home sales in the Control Area Sale group that are located within Wake County, either in Middle Creek Township or Panther Branch Township. They were built generally from 1989 to 1999 and are each similar in square footage and layout, as well as quality of construction, to the Test Area Sale and they sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale. r s • 1 Sunfish Farm Solar - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map ‘Liptto. • 4• 4t Nat j_ C tit r It • f Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 88 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ u 1,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 It is informative to note that the marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales ranged from 30 to 127 days on market, and the marketing time for Adjoining Property 10 was 98 days, which is within the range of the Control Area Sales. This is an indication that the marketability of the Test Area Sale was not negatively influenced by proximity to the solar farm. We adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using the compounded monthly growth rate exhibited in the FHFA House Price Index, for the period from December 2015 to the end of December 2018 (36 months). When adjusting sales prices for market conditions (time between date of Test Area Sale and Control Area Sales date) throughout this analysis we have used regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. We utilized the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index (FHFA HPI) for the 27592 zip code to determine the average monthly rate of appreciation. The FHFA HPI is a broad measure of the movement of single-family house prices. The FHFA HPI is a weighted, repeat -sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or re -financings on the same properties. The FHFA HPI serves as a timely, accurate indicator of house price trends at various geographic levels.23 The results of the paired sales analysis for Adjoining Property 10 are presented below. CohnReznick Paired Sales Analysis GROUP Sunfish 1 - Adjoining Farm Solar Property 10 No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Adjusted Median Solar Farm � Price Per SF Test Area Sale (1) Yes: Adjoining solar farm $127.89 Control Area Sales (14) No: Not adjoining solar farm $124.86 V V 2,43% Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales The difference between the unit price of the Test Area Sale and the Adjusted Median Unit Price of the Control Area Sales is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Sunfish Farm solar installation impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 10. 23 https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 89 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u ............ • u II • • • • WEIN • • • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 GROUP 2 Adjoining Property 15 (Test Area Sale) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a manufactuerd single-family home use, with 1,860 square feet of improvements, on a parcel of 1.24 -acres, that sold in October 2019. The property line for this property is approximately 665 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 760 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 15. Test Sale 1 Adjoining Property 15 7608 Maude Stewart Road $125,000 1.24 2 2 1990 1,860 One -Story, Manufactured, No Basement $67.20 Oct -19 In Group 2, we have studied only homes on lots between 0.50 and 1.60 acres and homes that are greater than 1,750 square feet, built between 1990 and 2003, so as to be comparable to the Test Area Sale home. The Control Area Sales sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics, that is they are one-story manufactured homes with no basements, that are located in Wake County, either in Middle Creek Township or Panther Branch Township. Sunfish Farm Solar - Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 90 •aIll sam•u•u•u......•III am••su•uau.... Ill .......•uauuu......uuu••Ill a•••• ••• •••su•• •••• ...amuuu•i We analyzed the eight Control Area Sales and adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using the compounded monthly growth rate exhibited in the FHFA House Price Index, for the period from December 2018 to December 2020 (24 months). The results of the paired sales analysis for Adjoining Property 15 are presented below. CohnReznick GROUP Sunfish 2 - Adjoining Paired Farm Sales Solar Property Analysis 15 No. of Sales Potentially Solar Impacted b Adjusted Price Per Media S Farm Area Sale (1) Yes: Adjoining solar farm $67.20 Test Control Area Sales (8) No: Not adjoining solar farm $66.23 The unit sale price of the Test Area Sale was slightly higher than the median adjusted unit sale price of the Control Area Sales and is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Sunfish Farm solar installation impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 15. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 91 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 SOLAR FARM 8: PORTAGE SOLAR FARM, PORTAGE, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 41.333263, Longitude -87.093015 PIN: 64-06-19-176-001.000-015 Total Land Size: 56 AC Date Project Announced: February 2012 Date Project Completed: September 2012 Output: 1.96 MW AC (1.5 MW DC) The solar farm was developed by Ecos Energy, a subsidiary of Allco Renewable Energy Limited, and is currently owned by PLH, Inc. This solar panels are ground -mounted the facility has the capacity for 1.96 Megawatts (MW) AC of power, which is enough to power 300 homes. This solar farm consists of 7,128 solar modules which are of a fixed tilt installation and it contains three inverters. The Surrounding Area: The Portage Solar Farm is located outside the City of Portage, in Portage Township, approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast of the city center. The solar farm is also approximately two miles northwest of South Haven, a neighboring residential community. Portage Township is in the northern portion of Porter County, which is in the northwestern corner of the state of Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 45 miles southeast of downtown Chicago. The Immediate Area: This solar farm is located on the south side of Robbins Road, and is surrounded to the west, south, and east by agricultural land. Just beyond the agricultural land buffer, uses to the west and east area single family homes, and to the south is an apartment complex and a commercial development with an IMAX movie theater and restaurants. To the north of the solar farm, across Robbins Road uses consist of a residential subdivision and vacant land. The solar farm and surrounding properties have a Valparaiso mailing address. The solar farm is fenced from adjacent properties by a fence that surrounds all of the solar panels. Natural vegetation borders the northern, and eastern sides of the larger agricultural parcel the solar farm is nestled within. Real Estate Tax Information: The taxes on the 56 acres of farmland were $1,400 per year prior to the solar farm development. After the solar farm was developed, only 13 acres (23 percent of the site) were re -assessed and the remaining 43 acres continued to be farmed. The total real estate tax bill increased to $16,350 after the solar farm was built, including both uses on the site. This indicates that the real estate taxes for the solar farm increased from $25 per acre to $1,175 per acre after the solar farm was developed. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha is d Iv Q ai WI ha vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha ii d i .. l;i Q lul ... 7' lli ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 92 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M rr rnr M 11 7 1I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ (Erin ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 The map below displays the solar farm parcel shaded in blue, and the adjoining properties (outlined in red). Adjoining Properties to the solar farm are numbered for subsequent analysis. Portage Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI ha ha r & M ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 93 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 Portage Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha is d Iv Q ai WI ha vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha ii d Q .. Q Q lul ... 7' Iii ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 94 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r 7 7 M 11 7 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r i, r R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Properties 1 and 7 (Test Area Sales) were each considered for a paired sales analysis. Adjoining Property 1 was analyzed as homestead -small farmland tract since at the time of purchase the site was used only as agricultural land. The buyer bought it as vacant land and subsequently built a home on the site. Adjoining Property 7 was analyzed as a single-family home use. GROUP 1 For Adjoining Property 1 (Group 1), the property line is approximtately 836 feet from the closest solar panel and the residential home that was eventually built is approximately 1,228 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. Portage Solar Test Area Group Sale 1 Property Adj. # Address.. Sale Price Site Size [ (AC) PI j(Corn)j Index � eaAn Built a Vacant tof he Sale at e Sale Per Price Acre Sale Date 1 442 Valparaiso W 875 N, $149,600 18.70 139.30After 2017 Purchase) Yes $8,000 Feb -14 In Group 1, we analyzed nine Control Area Sales of homesteads -small farmland tracts that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 1. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The result of our analysis for Group 1 is presented below. CohnReznick Portage Paired Group Solar Sale 1 Analysis No. of Sales I Potentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Price Per Median Acre Area Sales (1) Adjoining solar farm $8,000 Test Control Area Sales (9) No: Not adjoining solar farm $7,674 of Test of Control Area Sale Area Sales an • Difference Adjusted between Median Unit Unit Price Price 4.25% Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 95 • a u s a m • u • u • u ...... • s a m • • s u • u a u ...... a m • m u • • • • • • • W E IN • u u • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ GROUP 2 For Adjoining Property 7 (Group 2), the residential home is approximately 1,227 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 7. Portage Solar Test Group Area Sale 2 Bed Baths ear Built Square Feet 7 836 Val N p 450 W araisop $149,800 1.00 3.0 1.5 1964 1,776 $84.35 Sep -13 For Adjoining Property 7, we analyzed seven Control Area Sales of similar single family homes that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 7. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Portage Solar - Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 96 •aIll sam•u•u•u......•III am••su•uau.... Ill .......•uauuu......uuu••Ill a•••• ••• •••su•• •••• ...amuuu•i The result of our analysis for Group 2 is presented below. CohnReznick Portage Paired Group Solar Sale 2 Analysis : otentially Solar Impacted Farm by Adjusted Price Media Per SF f Test Area Sales (1) Adjoining solar farm $84.35 Control Area Sales (7) No: Not adjoining solar farm $84.27 Noting the relatively small price differentials between Test Area Sales and Control Area Sales, with both Test Area Sales (Adjoining Property 1 and 7) having higher unit sale prices than the respective Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Portage Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 97 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ ■ ■ . . . . 1 SOLAR FARM 9: IMPA FRANKTON SOLAR FARM, FRANKTON, INDIANA Location: Frankton, Madison County, Indiana Coordinates: Latitude 40.125701; Longitude -85.4626.88 PIN: 48-08-06-500-012.001-020 Total Land Size: 13 acres Date Project Announced: November 2013 Date Project Completed: June 2014 Output: 1.0 MW AC (1.426 MW DC) IMPA Frankton Solar Farm is located on the west side of South Lafayette Street, in the Town of Frankton. The solar farm was built in 2014 in joint effort by Inovateus Solar and Indiana Municipal Power Agency (IMPA). This solar farm has the capacity for 1 MW AC and its expected annual output is 1,426 MWh (megawatt hours). The solar farm is separated off from the adjacent properties by a 6 foot fence that surrounds the entirety of the solar panels. From our inspection of the site, we noted that the driveway to access the panels slopes downward and allows some views of the site. The Surrounding Area: The IMPA Frankton solar farm is located in Lafayette Township, in the central portion of Madison County, Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 50 miles northeast of the center of Indianapolis and 65 miles northeast of the Indianapolis International Airport. The Immediate Area: The solar installation is relatively centrally located in an undeveloped pocket of the town of Frankton, on the western side of South Lafayette Street. Adjoining parcels to the west include park land featuring baseball fields. Land further to the west is agricultural in nature, actively farmed primarily with row crops. Adjoining parcels to the north are residential with large estate homes. Adjoining the solar farm to the southeast is a single-family home identified in our analysis as Adjoining Property 7, and a baseball field. More farmland is directly south of the solar site. The solar site is adjoining a number of homes located east of the panels, along Lafayette Street. Mature trees at the rear of residential properties act as vegetative buffers. Across Lafayette Street, to the east, are single-family residential homes forming the southeast quadrant of homes in Frankton. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural, residential, or recreational purposes. The solar farm is surrounded by a chain link fence that contains all the solar panels. Additionally, vegetative buffers along sides facing residential properties were planted as part of the solar farm development. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii d Q .. Q Q lul ... 7' Iii ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 98 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M r" rr M 1• n II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ OE nfi^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 1MPA Frankton Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm in 2014, the original owner held one parcel of 15.667 acres with a home, pole barn and a utility shed, and no personal property was assessed on this parcel. In 2014 the parcel was split into two parcels and 13 acres was sold to IMPA for development of the solar farm. The owner of the parent parcel of 15.667 acres paid real estate taxes of $1,799 annually, prior to the split. After development of the solar farm, real estate taxes for both parcels, plus personal property tax revenue generated from the solar parcel, caused an increase $8,275, or a 360 percent increase in tax revenue for the entire site. Acres Madison County, IN 48-08-06-500-012.000-020 (parent) 15.667 (2013) Personal Property 48-08-06-500-012.001-020 (2014 solar parcel split) 13.00 (2017) Personal Property TOTAL 0.00 2013 LPaid Taxes 2017 Taxes Paid Increase Tax $ 1,799 $ 1,402 $ - $ - $ $ 4,063 $ - $ 2,810 $ 1,799 $ 8,275 360% 2013 Imr", 2017 a Value Assessed Value Assessed Value Increase Jk $ 138,700 $ 127,000 $ $ - - $ $ 137,400 $ - $ 440,380 $ 138,700 $ 704,780 408% The map below displays the solar farm parcel (outlined in red). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis. 111115111a1111111 IIIMPIPWis- Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 99 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r 7 7 M 11 7 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r i, r R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have performed a paired sales analysis with regards to the IMPA Frankton solar farm. The analysis compares sales of Adjoining Properties to the solar farm after the completion of the solar farm site (Test Area Sales) to similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales). We utilized this type of paired sale analysis for both groups of Adjoining Properties under study. GROUP 1 In Group 1, we identified and analyzed six Control Area Sales that were comparable to the Test Area Sale in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. We excluded sales that were bank -owned, or otherwise non arms' -length transactions. Adjoining Property 2 was manufactured single-family home use. IMPA Frankton Test Area Solar Sales Farm Group 1 Adj. Property • # Address Sale Site Size Beds Baths Year Built Home (SF) Size Sale Date Price PSF Price (AC) 2 607 S. Frankton, Lafayette IN St $41,900 0.37 2 2 1991 1,466 Jun -15 $28.58 We identified six Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 2) and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Pagel 100 •aIll sam•u•u•u......•III am••su•uau.... Ill ... III ...•uauuu......uuu••Ill a•••• ••• •••su•• •••• .........i IMPA Frankton Solar Farm — Group 1: Test Area Sale Map Control Area Sales in Group 1 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. CohnReznick IMPA Paired Sale Analysis Frankton Group Solar 1 Farm Potential) Impacted by Sola Far Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining Solar Farm $28.58 Control Area Sales (6) No: Not adjoining solar farm $28.42 GROUP 2 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 101 •aIll sam•u•u•u......•III am••su•uau.... Ill .......•uauuu......uuu••Ill a•••• ••• •••su•• •••• ...smuuu•1 In Group 2, we identified and analyzed five Control Area Sales that were comparable to the Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 7) in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. We excluded sales that were bank -owned, or otherwise non arms' -length transactions. Adjoining Property 7 was analyzed as a single-family home use. IMPA Frankton Test Area Solar Sales Farm Group 2 Site Size (AC) Beds Baths 7 713 S. Frankton, Lafeytte IN St $131,000 3.04 4 2 2003 2,500 Oct -16 $52.40 We identified five Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. IMPA Frankton Solar Farm — Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Control Area Sales in Group 2 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Pagel 102 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Group 2 No. of Sale iim� Potentially Impacted Farm by Solar Adjusted Price per Median SF _ Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining Solar Farm $52.40 Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $51.47 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and 1.81% Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales a Noting the relatively small price differential, in which the Test Area Sales were higher than the median for the Control Areas Sales, in both Groups 1 and 2, it does not appear that the IMPA Frankton solar farm had any negative impact on adjoining property values. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Pagel 103 .........................................................................................., SOLAR FARM 10: VALPARAISO SOLAR, VALPARAISO, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 41.301180, Longitude —87.094055 PINs: 64-09-07-152-001.000-019 and 64-09-07-152-002.000-019 Total Land Size: 27.9 Acres Date Project Announced: March 2012 Date Project Completed: December 20, 2012 Output: 1 MW AC (1.3 MW DC) The Valparaiso solar farm was developed by Sustainable Power Group, LLC and became operational in December 2012. The solar facility has ground mounted capacity for 1.0 Megawatts (MW) AC of power. The panels are mounted in a fixed tilt fashion and there are two inverters in this solar farm. The Surrounding Area: The Valparaiso solar farm is located in Union Township, in the northwest portion of Porter County, Indiana. Porter County is located in the very northwest corner of the state of Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 10 miles northwest of the Porter County Regional Airport and approximately six and a half miles northwest of the center of the city of Valparaiso. The Immediate Area: This solar farm is located on the southern side of Indiana Route 130 (Railroad Avenue) in Valparaiso, Porter County, Indiana and is located approximately 35 miles southwest of downtown Chicago. Adjoining parcels to the solar farm to the east and south are residential homes and to the west and north are agricultural in nature. The solar farm is lined by a chain link fence that surrounds all of the solar panels. Additionally, there are bushes and trees to the north and west of the solar panels; this vegetation has been in place since before development of the solar farm. Other small trees were planted and spaced out around the perimeter of the solar farm after development. From our inspection, the solar panels cannot be seen from Indiana State Route 130 from the north, nor on N 475 W Road to the east as this is a raised roadway. The adjacent properties to the east of the solar panels have full view of the panels from the backyards of the homes. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha Q ii d Q I . Q Q lul ® ® ® 7' Iii ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 104 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ RI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r^� Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2011, the original parent parcel contained a home, a homesite, excess land, and agricultural land. In 2012, Valparaiso Solar, LLC bought the entire property to develop the solar farm on. Subsequently when Valparaiso Solar, LLC sold the project to PLH, LLC, they split the parcels so that the home and homesite were one parcel of 3.25 acres and the remaining 24.65 acres were the solar panel site. After development of the solar farm development, in 2015, total real estate taxes for both parcels had increased to approximately $2,587, a 25 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. PIN Acres a4 Porter County, IN 64-09-07-151-001.000-019 (parent parcel) 64-09-07-152-001.000-019 (split parcel) 64-09-07-152-002.000-019 (split parcel) 24.65 3.25 TOTAL 27.90 2011 Taxes Paid 2015 Taxes Paid Increased" Tax $ 2,072 $ 2,587 $ 1,741 $ 2,072 $ 2,587 25% 1 2011 Assessed 2015 Assessed Increase Value i Value Value 1 I $ 203,800 $ 156,800 $ 187,900 $ 203,800 $ 344,700 69% The maps below and on the following page display the solar farm parcels (outlined in red). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis. Valparaiso Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 105 .........................................................................................., Valparaiso Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha is d Iv Q ai WI ha vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha ii d Q I . Q Q lul ® ® ® r Iii ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 106 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ir P^ "" " 1 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ rl 77 7 n•••••••••• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Properties 10 and 14 (Test Area Sales) were each considered for a paired sales analysis. Both were analyzed as single-family home uses. GROUP For Adjoining Property 10 (Group 1), the residential home is approximately 514 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. Valparaiso Test Group Area Solar Sale 1 Property Adj. I it Address Sale Price Site Si(AC) z Beds Bathil Year Square Feet Price PSF iiDate 1Sale Built I 10 489 Valparaiso, W 450 N, IN $105,000 1.45 3 2 1993 1,274 $ 82.42 Jul -15 We analyzed five Control Area Sales that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 10. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 107 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , Valparaiso Solar - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map The result of our analyses for Group 1 is presented below. CohnReznick Valparaiso Paired Group Sale Solar 1 Analysis No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Adjusted Median Price SF Farm Per Test Area Sales (1) Adjoining solar farm $82.42 Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $79.95 Difference Adjusted between Median Unit Unit Price Price of of Control Test Area Sale Area Sales and Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 108 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ rl^q 7 7 n•••••••••• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 TECHNIO!JF ' MARKFT COMMENTARY Additionally, we have contacted market participants such as appraisers, brokers, and developers familiar with property values around solar farms. Commentary from our conversations with these market participants is recorded below. Ted Droeste, assessor of Delta Township has the Delta Solar Power facility in his district that was completed in 2018. He indicated that he has been actively tracking sales of properties surrounding the solar facility and stated that properties have sold fast, at market or above market and he had no evidence of declining value. Mr. Droeste stated that they have not adjusted assessed values for properties surrounding the solar panels. A Clark County, Kentucky Property Valuation Administrator, Jason Neely, noted there have been no complaints regarding East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.'s Cooperative Solar One project installed in November 2017 located in the county, which has a capacity to generate 8.5 MW of electricity. Additionally, Neely stated he has not seen any evidence of lowered property values in the area and no reduction in assessed property values has been made due to proximity to the solar farm. A Grant County, Kentucky Assessor stated that they have not seen a reduction in assessed property values or market values for adjacency to solar farms. A McNairy County, Tennessee Assessor stated that they have not applied reductions to assessed value for adjacency to solar farms. Christy Wingate, a real estate broker with Parker Real Estate Group, noted in her experience, the presence of a solar farm is neither an attraction nor a deterrant for nearby home buyers. A Miami Dade County, Florida Assessor stated that they do not reduce assessed property values for adjacency to Solar Farms. A Putnam County, Florida Assessor stated that they have not seen a reduction in assessed value for adjacency to Solar Farms. Renee Davis, Tax Administrator for Bladen County, North Carolina, stated that she has not seen any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Jim Brown, an appraiser for Scotland County, North Carolina, who stated that he has seen no effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Gary Rose, a tax assessor for Duplin County, North Carolina, who stated that he has seen no effect on property values in regards to proximity to a solar farm. Kathy Renn, a property Valuation Manager for Vance County, North Carolina, stated that she has not noticed any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. Larry Newton, a Tax Assessor for Anson County, North Carolina, stated that there are six solar farms in the county ranging from 20 to 40 acres and he has not seen any evidence that solar farms have had any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 109 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1171II■■■■■..■■.■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■ t ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■inl We spoke with Patrice Stewart, a Tax Administrator for Pasquotank County, North Carolina, and she has seen no effect on land or residential property values due to proximity to the solar farms in Pasquotank County. We spoke with the selling broker of the Adjoining Property for Elm City Solar, in North Carolina, Selby Brewer, who said the solar farm did not impact the buyer's motivation. We spoke with Amy Carr, Commissioner of Revenue in Southampton County, Virginia, who stated that most of the solar farms are in rural areas, but she has not seen any effect or made any adjustments on property values. They have evaluated the solar farmland considering a more intense use, which increased the assessed value. The Interim Assessor for the town of Whitestown in Oneida County, New York, Frank Donato, stated that he has seen no impact on property values of properties nearby solar farms. Steve Lehr at the Department of Assessment for Tompkins County, New York, mentioned that the appraisal staff has made no adjustments regarding assessed values of properties surrounding solar farms. Marketing times for properties have also stayed consistent. Lehr noted that a few of the solar farms in Thompkins County are on land owned by colleges and universities and a few are in rural areas. At this point in time, Al Fiorille, Senior Valuation Specialist in the Tompkins County Assessment department in New York, reported that he cannot measure any negativity from the solar farms and arrays that have been installed within the county. Mason Hass, the Riverhead Assessor in Suffolk County, on Long Island, New York stated that the solar farms in his town are in industrial zoned areas, and he has not seen any impact on adjacent properties. The Assessor for the town of Smithtown in Suffolk County, New York, Irene Rice, has not seen any impact on property values as a result of their location near the newly built solar farms in her town. In the Assessor's office in the town of Seneca, Ontario County, New York, Shana Jo Hamilton stated that she has seen no impact on property values of properties adjacent to solar farms. Michael Zazzara, Assessor of the City of Rochester in Monroe County, New York commented that the City has a couple of solar farms, and they have seen no impact on nearby property values and have received no complaints from property owners. While there are one or two homes nearby to existing solar farms in the town of Lisbon in St. Lawrence County, New York, Assessor Stephen Teele has not seen any impact on property values in his town. The solar farms in the area are in rural or agricultural areas in and around Lisbon. The Assessor for the Village of Whitehall in Washington County, New York, Bruce Caza, noted that there are solar farms located in both rural and residential areas in the village and he has seen no impact on adjacent properties, including any concerns related to glare form solar panels. Laurie Lambertson, the Town Assessor for Bethlehem, in Albany County, New York noted that the solar farms in her area are tucked away in rural or industrial areas. Lambertson has seen no impact on property values in properties adjacent to solar farms. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 110 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 77M1M7II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�� We spoke with Ken Surface, a Senior Vice President of Nexus Group. Nexus Group is a large valuation group in Indiana and has been hired by 20 counties in Indiana regarding property assessments. Mr. Surface is familiar with the solar farm sites in Harrison County (Zanesville Solar Farm) and Monroe County (Ellettsville Solar Farm) and stated he has noticed no impact on property values from proximity to these sites. We interviewed Missy Tetrick, a Commercial Valuation Analyst for the Marion County Indiana Assessor. She mentioned the Indy Solar III sites and stated that she saw no impact on land or property prices from proximity to this solar farm. We spoke with Dorene Greiwe, Decatur County Indiana Assessor, and she stated that solar farms have only been in the county a couple of years, but she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to this solar farm. Connie Gardner, First Deputy Assessor for Madison County Indiana, stated that there are three solar farms in her county, and she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to these solar farms. We spoke with Tara Shaver, Director of Administration for Marion County, Indiana Assessor/Certified Assessor, and she stated that she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to solar farms. Candace Rindahl of ReMax Results, a real estate broker with 16 years of experience in the North Branch, Minnesota area, said that she has been in most of the homes surrounding the North Star Solar Farm and personally sold two of them. She reported that the neighboring homes sold at market rates comparable to other homes in the area not influenced by the solar farm, and they sold within 45 days of offering, at the end of 2017, which was in line with the market. Dan Squires, Chisago County Tax Assessor, confirmed that the Chisago County Assessor's Office completed their own study on property values adjacent to and in close vicinity to the solar farm from January 2016 to October 2017. From the study, the assessor determined the residential homes adjacent to the North Star Solar Farm were in -line with the market and were appreciating at the same rate as the market.24 24 Chisago County Press: County Board Real Estate Update Shows No "Solar Effects" (11/03/2017) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page I 111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r 7 7 7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 SOLAR FARM FACTORS ON HARMONY OF 11SF Zoning changes and conditional use permits often require that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. The following section analyzes specific physical characteristics of solar farms and is based on research and CohnReznick's personal solar farm site visits and indicate that solar farms are generally harmonious with surrounding property and compliant with most zoning standards. Appearance: Most solar panels have a similar appearance to a greenhouse or single -story residence can range from 8 to 20 feet but are usually not more than 15 feet high. As previously mentioned, developers generally surround a solar farm with a fence and often leave existing perimeter foliage, which minimizes the visibility of the solar farm. The physical characteristics of solar farms are compatible with adjoining agricultural and residential uses. Sound: Solar panels in general are effectively silent and sound levels are minimal, like ambient sound. There are limited sound -emitting pieces of equipment on -site, which only produce a quiet hum (e.g., substation). However, these sources are not typically heard outside the solar farm perimeter fence. Odor: Solar panels do not produce any byproduct or odor. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: Much of the GHG produced in the United States is linked to the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum, for energy use. Generating renewable energy from operating solar panels for energy use does not have significant GHG emissions, promoting cleaner air and reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to fight climate change. Traffic: The solar farm requires minimal daily onsite monitoring by operational employees and thus minimal operational traffic. Hazardous Material: Modern solar panel arrays are constructed to U.S. government standards. Testing shows that modern solar modules are both safe to dispose of in landfills and are also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster.25 Reuse or recycling of materials would be prioritized over disposal. Recycling is an area of significant focus in the solar industry, and programs for both batteries and solar panels are advancing every year. While the exact method of recycling may not be known yet as it is dependent on specific design and manufacturer protocol, the equipment is designed with recyclability of its components in mind, and it is likely that solar panel and battery energy storage recycling and reuse programs will only improve in 25 years' time. Agrivoltaics: The land underlying solar farms can serve multiple uses, increasing land -use efficiency, such as growing native plants beneath solar panels or grazing sheep amongst rows of solar panels. Agrivoltaics can further be defined as a farming method that aims to maximize land use by pairing solar panels with cropland, 25 Virginia Solar Initiative - Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service — University of Virginia (https://solar.coopercenter.org/taxonomy/term/5311) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CohnReznick ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 112 •aIll sam•u•u•u......•III am••su•uau.... Ill .......•uauuu......uuu••Ill a•••• ••• •••su•• •••• ...smuuu•1 thus minimizing competition between energy production and food.26 Scientists from the Department of Energy's Agronne National Laboratory in Illinois and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado conducted tests on two different solar installations in Minnesota that were built on 76 acres of farmland. The land beneath the solar panels was seeded with numerous species of native grasses and flowers, then allowed to grow for one year. The following years, the two sites were visited four times each summer during peak flower season to track the number and type of insects attracted to the newly planted vegetation. After five years of tracking, the population of native bees increased more than 20 times and adjacent soybean farms experienced an increase in bees and other pollinators. Testing shows that if sited properly, habitat -friendly solar energy can be a feasible way to safeguard insect populations and can improve the pollination services in adjacent agricultural fields.27 Examples of homes built adjoining to solar farms are presented on the following pages. 26 (Bryce, Anthropocene Magazine, 2023) (Solar panels handle heat better when combined with crops anthropocenemagazine.org) 27 (Cornwall, Solar Farms Could Come with a Pollinator Bonus, 2024) (Solar farms could come with a pollinator bonus (anthropocenemagazine.org'; ) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 113 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ RI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r^� For the Dominion Indy III solar farm, the adjacent land to the west was acquired and subsequently developed with a large estate home — after the solar panels had been in operation for years. Dominion Indy III Solar Farm September 2014 ••_.. .. 11.1771 .fi •1 M�sr.a�'�T+ Dominion Indy Ill Solar Farm October 2016 Estate home adjacent to Dominion Indy 111 Solar Farm In ground pool and attached garage (home cost estimated at $450,000 - October 2015) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d d d lul id d d Gul d d d id d Gul a d d lul id d d d Gul d d d d d ■ ■ d lul d ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® d ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 114 ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . . ■ .. . ■ ■ ■ . ■ . ■ ■ ■ . ■ . ■ . r9 79 7 7 ii . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . 1 t #.404,•„ ir it - if saisimAilt • P Single Family Home Development (1) - End -user built 2,933 SF Completed on 3/1/2019 Cost estimate: $170,300 , Innovative Solar 42 (2017) Cumberland County, NC Single Family Home Development (2) - Developer built 4 Bedroom 3 Bathroom 2,401 SF Sold 6/18/19 for $265,900 ($110.75/sf) Innovative Solar 42 (2079) Cumberland County, NC Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. IQQ ,iwelul d 5i Q iWiWIIIIQQ1ilul iWiW ... TIII ® ® M ■ . ® ® ® ® I ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 115 ..........................................................................................1 Developer Built Home Sold 6/18/19 for $265,900 ($110.75/sf) Cumberland County, NC (adjacent to Innovative 42 solar farm) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n Rez n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii IQ Q ai 41 ha Q is d Iv Q ai WI ha Q vi d 5i Q ai 41 ha Q ii d Q I . Q Q lul ® ■ ■ ® . ® . ® ■ ® . ® ■ ® .. ■ ® 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 116 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ri fir "" 1171 II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ •••••••••••••••M••••••••1 Portage Solar Farm located in Indiana 100 -feet from property line to panels Robb�ns�Rd�d_ iRcb inseam A new 175 -home subdivision is currently under construction adjacent the 1.5 MW Portage Solar Farm in Porter County, Indiana. The solar facility was completed in November 2011, and Lennar began construction on the Brookside Subdivision in 2022, with the first homes selling in March 2023. The subdivision is 100 feet from the panels. As of March 2024, there have been 64 closed sales, ranging from $274,900 to $454,675, or $105.00 to $220.54 PSF, with a median of $374,990, with a median of $167.01 PSF. There are two pending sales and nine active listings, ranging from $339,990 to $423,990. On the next page, we show the same Portage Solar Farm and a newly constructed home to the east of the solar facility, completed in 2016. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lie ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 117 ..........................................................................................1 Portage Solar Farm, IN October 2015 M I 4,255 SF Estate Home Under Construction, 4BR 5Ba + Pond Portage Solar Farm, IN October 2016 4,255 square foot estate home under construction, adjacent to Portage Solar Farm located in Indiana On -site pond and attached garage (cost estimated at $465, 000) April 2018 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii IQ Q ai Gul ha is d Iv Q ai WI ha vi d C Q ai Gul ha ii d C l Q I . Q Q l lul ®®® iii ®® d■.®®®®.■■. 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 118 . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . •••••••••••••••M• ... .. . . , The Brighton PV Solar farm became operational in December 2012. Located in Adams County, north of Denver, CO, this solar farm has a capacity of 1.8 MW AC and is located on a triangular parcel of land east of an area of existing custom-built estate homes. A photo of one home (15880 Jackson Street) located directly north of the circled area below is presented to the right. In December 2012, the 2.55 -acre lot encircled in red below (15840 Jackson Street) was purchased for future development of a single-family home. This home was built in 2017, and per the county assessor, the two-story home is 3,725 square feet above ground with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms. According to the building permit issued in August 2016, the construction cost was budgeted at $410,000. Brighton PV Solar, Adams County, CO June 2016 Brighton PV Solar, Adams County, CO June 2017 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d di Q ii WI ka d I'd d Q Q li Gul d d I'd d d d id Q ai Gul ha is d Q ai WI ha d I'd d di Q li Gul d d I'd d d d d id .. Qii WI ... 7' Ill ® ® d ■ . ® ® I® ® . ■ ■ MI Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Pagel 119 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ir P^ ". 1 , ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 SUMMARY OF ADJOINING USES The table below summarizes each Existing Solar Farm's adjoining uses. Composition of Surrounding Uses (% of Surrounding Acreage) Solar Farm # Solar Farm Acreage % of Acreage % of Acreage Surrounding Industrial % Uses of Acreage Surrounding Office Uses % of Acreage Surrounding % of Avg. Distance Panels from to Surrounding Surrounding Agricultural Uses Residential Uses Other Uses Improvements (Feet) 1 2662 Freeport Solar 96.30% 3.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 243 2 Grand Ridge 97.60% 1.40% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 553 3 Spring Mill Solar 43.50% 54.30% 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 481 4 Jefferson County Solar 66.90% 33.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 709 5 DTE Lapeer 60.00% 35.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 260 6 Dominion Indy Solar III 97.70% 2.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 474 7 Sunfish Farm 81.70% 18.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 380 8 Portage Solar 65.50% 34.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 991 9 IMPA Frankton 76.30% 5.70% 0.00% 0.00% 18.00% 236 10 Valparaiso Solar LLC 81.60% 18.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 659 Overall, the vast majority of the surrounding acreage for each comparable solar farm is made up of agricultural land, some of which have homesteads. There are also smaller single-family home sites that adjoin the solar farms analyzed in this report. Generally, these solar farms are sound comparables to Pivot Energy Development's proposed solar project in terms of adjoining uses, location, and size. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 120 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ENE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ rl^q 7 7 n•••••••••• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 SUMMARY AN FINAL CONCl...USIONS The purpose of this property value impact report is to determine whether the presence of a solar farm has caused a measurable and consistent impact on adjacent property values. Under the identified methodology and scope of work, CohnReznick reviewed published methodology for measuring impact on property values as well as published reports that analyzed the impact of solar farms on property values. These studies found little to no measurable and consistent difference between Test Area Sales and Control Area Sales attributed to the solar farms. A summary of the chosen CohnReznick impact studies prepared is presented in the following map and table: oc Cs HI D. States included in CohnReznick Impact Studies Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d d d lul k id d d Gul d d d id d Gul a d Q ae WI had d d d Gul d d d d d ■ ■ d lul d ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 121 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 CohnReznick Solar Analysis Conclusions Solar Farm Solar No. Number Farm Test Sales of Number Area Control Sales Median of Area (Test Property Price Adjoining per Area Sale Unit Sales) Control Sales per Median Unit Area Price Avg. Feet Difference (%) from Panel from to Lot Avg. Feet Panel to House Single -Family Residential 1 2662 Freeport Solar 2 14 $77.33 $76.08 +1.65% 114 243 2 Grand Ridge Solar 1 5 $79.90 $74.35 +7.46% 366 479 3 Spring Mill Solar Group 1 1 7 $97.79 $100.84 -3.03% 55 275 Spring Mill Solar Group 2 1 15 $110.50 $102.03 +8.30% 450 575 4 Jefferson County Solar Group 1 3 12 $306.15 $270.00 +13.39% 785 873 Jefferson County Solar Group 2 1 4 $352.94 $356.89 -1.11% 30 80 Jefferson County Solar Group 3 3 6 $165.15 $164.36 +0.48% 625 660 5 DTE Lapeer Solar Group 1 3 6 $105.26 $99.64 +5.65% 205 285 DTE Lapeer Solar Group 2 1 5 $114.12 $113.01 +0.98% 225 315 DTE Lapeer Solar Group 3 1 4 $94.84 $96.32 -1.53% 165 250 6 Dominion Indy Solar III Group 2 4 8 $60.61 $57.85 +4.78% 240 350 Dominion Indy Solar Ill Group 3 7 11 $72.15 $71.69 +0.65% 165 300 7 Sunfish Farm Solar Group 1 1 14 $127.89 $124.86 +2.43% 50 200 Sunfish Farm Solar Group 2 1 10 $67.20 $66.23 +1.47% 665 760 8 Portage Solar Group 2 1 7 $84.35 $84.27 +0.10% 1,070 1,233 9 IMPA Frankton Solar Group 1 1 6 $28.58 $28.42 +0.56% 120 153 IMPA Frankton Solar Group 2 1 5 $52.40 $51.47 +1.81% 163 415 10 Valparaiso Solar Group 1 1 5 $82.42 $79.95 +3.09% 323 516 Median Variance in Sale Prices for Test Area Sales to Control Area Sales +1.56% 34 Adjoining Test Area Sales studied and compared to 144 Control Area Sales * Note, the paired sale analysis for this group is an outlier as determined earlier in this report and was excluded from this summary table. Land (Agricultural/Single Family Lots) 6 Dominion Indy Solar III Group 1 8 Portage Solar Group 1 1 4 $8,210 $8,091 +1.47% 280 1 9 $8,000 $7,674 +4.25% 845 ONO Median Variance in Sale Prices for Test to Control Areas +2.86% 2 Adjoining Test Area Sale studied and compared to 13 Control Area Sales As summarized above, we evaluated 36 property sales adjoining existing solar facilities (Test Area Sales) and 157 Control Area Sales. In addition, we studied a total of 33 Test Area Sales and 53 Control Area Sales in four Before and After analyses. In total, we have studied over 275 sale transactions. The solar farms analyzed reflected sales of property adjoining an existing solar farm (Test Area Sales) in which the unit sale prices were effectively the same or higher than the comparable Control Area Sales that were not near a solar farm. The conclusions support that there is no negative impact for improved residential homes adjacent to solar, nor agricultural acreage. This was confirmed with market participants interviews, which provided additional insight as to how the market evaluates farmland and single-family homes with views of the solar farm. It can be concluded that since the Adjoining Property Sales (Test Area Sales) were not adversely affected by their proximity to the solar farm, that properties surrounding other proposed solar farms operating in compliance with all regulatory standards will similarly not be adversely affected, in either the short or long term periods. Based upon the examination, research, and analyses of the existing solar farm uses, the surrounding areas, and an extensive market database, we have concluded that no consistent negative impact has occurred to adjacent property values that could be attributed to proximity to the adjacent solar farm, with regard to unit sale prices or other influential market indicators. Additionally, in our workfile we have retained analyses of Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 122 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Mr^ r'7MP171I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■(Erin ^ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r^l additional existing solar farms, each with their own set of matched control sales, which had consistent results, indicating no consistent and measurable impact on adjacent property values. This conclusion has been confirmed by numerous county assessors who have also investigated this use's potential impact on property values. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, CohnReznick LLP Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2025 Pennsylvania License No. GA004632 Expires 6/30/2025 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2024 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Director Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2024 Oregon License No. C001551 Expires 6/30/2024 California License No. 3004919 Expires 11/13/2025 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 123 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M 9" P'!9 M 1• P9 . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ('FRTIFICATION We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact and data reported are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, findings, and conclusions in this consulting report are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, findings, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or the parties involved with this assignment. 6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value finding, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this report. 8. Our analyses, findings, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which includes the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). 9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 10. Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have viewed the exterior of all comparable data referenced in this report in person, via photographs, or aerial imagery. 11. We have not relied on unsupported conclusions relating to characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, familial status, age, and receipt of public assistance income, handicap, or an unsupported conclusion that homogeneity of such characteristics is necessary to maximize value. 12. Joseph Ficenec provided significant appraisal consulting assistance to the persons signing this certification, including data verification, research, and administrative work all under the appropriate supervision. 13. We have experience in reviewing properties similar to the subject and are in compliance with the Competency Rule of USPAP. 14. As of the date of this report, Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI haha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC ..................................• Min II.......................... t Page 1 124 ...............�� If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, CohnReznick LLP l Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2025 Pennsylvania License No. GA004632 Expires 6/30/2025 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2024 L -(71:A kA. Erin C. Bowen, MAI Director Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2024 Oregon License No. C001551 Expires 6/30/2024 California License No. 3004919 Expires 11/13/2025 Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. d d d lul id d d Gul d d d id d Gul a d d lul id d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 125 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r17 7 7 ^ n•••••••••• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The fact witness services will be subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description provided or for matter pertaining to legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. The legal description used in this report is assumed to be correct. 2. The property is evaluated free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent management are assumed. 4. Information furnished by others is believed to be true, correct and reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering studies are assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to help the reader visualize the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7 It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local and environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the evaluation report. 8. It is assumed that the property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless nonconformity has been identified, described and considered in the evaluation report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 10. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in this report. 11. The date of value to which the findings are expressed in this report apply is set forth in the letter of transmittal. The appraisers assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some later date which may affect the opinions herein stated. 12. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous materials, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraisers. The appraisers have no knowledge of the existence of such substances on or in the property. The appraisers, however, are not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation, radon gas, lead or lead -based products, toxic waste contaminants, and other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■RI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ t Page 1 126 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■inl responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 13. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates included in this report were utilized to assist in the evaluation process and are based on reasonable estimates of market conditions, anticipated supply and demand, and the state of the economy. Therefore, the projections are subject to changes in future conditions that cannot be accurately predicted by the appraisers, and which could affect the future income or value projections. 14. Fundamental to the appraisal analysis is the assumption that no change in zoning is either proposed or imminent, unless otherwise stipulated. Should a change in zoning status occur from the property's present classification, the appraisers reserve the right to alter or amend the value accordingly. 15. It is assumed that the property does not contain within its confined any unmarked burial grounds which would prevent or hamper the development process. 16. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective on January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the property to determine if it is in conformance with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect on the value of the property. Unless otherwise noted in this report, we have not been provided with a compliance survey of the property. Any information regarding compliance surveys or estimates of costs to conform to the requirements of the ADA are provided for information purposes. No responsibility is assumed for the accuracy or completeness of the compliance survey cited in this report, or for the eventual cost to comply with the requirements of the ADA. 17. Any value estimates provided in this report apply to the entire property, and any proration or division of the total into fractional interests will invalidate the value estimate, unless such proration or division of interests has been set forth in this report. 18. Any proposed improvements are assumed to have been completed unless otherwise stipulated; any construction is assumed to conform with the building plans referenced in this report. 19. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, this evaluation assumes that the subject does not fall within the areas where mandatory flood insurance is effective. 20. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, we have not completed nor are we contracted to have completed an investigation to identify and/or quantify the presence of non -tidal wetland conditions on the subject property. 21. This report should not be used as a basis to determine the structural adequacy/inadequacy of the property described herein, but for evaluation purposes only. 22. It is assumed that the subject structure meets the applicable building codes for its respective jurisdiction. We assume no responsibility/liability for the inclusion/exclusion of any structural component item which may have an impact on value. It is further assumed that the subject property will meet code requirements as they relate to proper soil compaction, grading, and drainage. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 127 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MinII■■■■■..■■.■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■ t ■■■■■...■■■■■..�� 23. The appraisers are not engineers, and any references to physical property characteristics in terms of quality, condition, cost, suitability, soil conditions, flood risk, obsolescence, etc., are strictly related to their economic impact on the property. No liability is assumed for any engineering -related issues. The evaluation services will be subject to the following limiting conditions: 1. The findings reported herein are only applicable to the properties studied in conjunction with the Purpose of the Evaluation and the Function of the Evaluation as herein set forth; the evaluation is not to be used for any other purposes or functions. 2. Any allocation of the total value estimated in this report between the land and the improvements applies only to the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are not valid if so used. 3. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights, if any, and we have assumed that the property is not subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, unless otherwise noted in the evaluation. 4. This report has been prepared by CohnReznick under the terms and conditions outlined by the enclosed engagement letter. Therefore, the contents of this report and the use of this report are governed by the client confidentiality rules of the Appraisal Institute. Specifically, this report is not for use by a third party and CohnReznick is not responsible or liable, legally or otherwise, to other parties using this report unless agreed to in writing, in advance, by both CohnReznick and/or the client or third party. 5. Disclosure of the contents of this evaluation report is governed by the by-laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute has been prepared to conform with the reporting standards of any concerned government agencies. 6. The forecasts, projections, and/or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes with future conditions. This evaluation is based on the condition of local and national economies, purchasing power of money, and financing rates prevailing at the effective date of value. 7 This evaluation shall be considered only in its entirety, and no part of this evaluation shall be utilized separately or out of context. Any separation of the signature pages from the balance of the evaluation report invalidates the conclusions established herein. 8. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for any purposes by anyone other than the client without the prior written consent of the appraisers, and in any event, only with property qualification. 9. The appraisers, by reason of this study, are not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 10. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other than the appraiser's client, through advertising, solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales or Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 128 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Rn rr 1171 II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MINIM' ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r^� other media, without the written consent and approval of the authors, particularly as to evaluation conclusions, the identity of the appraisers or CohnReznick, LLC, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or the MAI designation. Further, the appraisers and CohnReznick, LLC assume no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment. 11. This evaluation is not intended to be used, and may not be used, on behalf of or in connection with a real estate syndicate or syndicates. A real estate syndicate means a general or limited partnership, joint venture, unincorporated association or similar organization formed for the purpose of, and engaged in, an investment or gain from an interest in real property, including, but not limited to a sale or exchange, trade or development of such real property, on behalf of others, or which is required to be registered with the United States Securities and Exchange commissions or any state regulatory agency which regulates investments made as a public offering. It is agreed that any user of this evaluation who uses it contrary to the prohibitions in this section indemnifies the appraisers and the appraisers' firm and holds them harmless from all claims, including attorney fees, arising from said use. Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 129 .........................................................................................., ADDENDUM A: APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. iii Q ai Gul ha is d Iv Q ai WI ha vi d 5i Q ai Gul ha ii d i .. l;i Q lul ® ® ® 7' lli ® ® d ■ . ® ® ® ® . ■ ■ . 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 130 .. Ill ................ III .............. Ill ........................ Ill ........ Ill .....................I Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE Principal - Real Estate Valuation Valuation Advisory Services 1 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3550 Chicago, IL 60606 312-508-5892 (w) 917-696-9636 (m) andrew.lines@cohnreznick.com www.cohnreznick.com Andrew R. Lines, MAI, CRE is a Principal for CohnReznick Advisory's Valuation Advisory Services practice who has been a CohnReznick employee for over twelve years. Andrew has been involved in the real estate business for more than 20 years and has performed valuations on all real estate classes (industrial, commercial, residential, development land). Special -use valuations include affordable housing (as well as market studies), student housing, senior housing, cannabis facilities (indoor/outdoor, processing and dispensaries), landfills, waste transfer stations, golf courses, marinas, hospitals, universities, telecommunications facilities, data centers, self- storage facilities, racetracks, and corridors. Impact Study Reports have also been generated for zoning hearings related to the development of solar facilities, wind powered facilities, landfills, big box retail, waste transfer stations, private mental health clinics, cannabis dispensaries, concert/stadium venues and day care centers. He is also experienced in the valuation of leasehold, leased fee, and partial interests, as well as purchase price allocations (GAAP, IFRS and IRC 1060) for financial reporting. Valuations have been completed nationwide for a variety of assignments including mortgage financing, litigation, tax appeal, estate gifts, asset management, workouts, and restructuring, as well as valuation for financial reporting including purchase price allocations (ASC 805), impairment studies, and appraisals for investment company guidelines and REIS standards. Andrew has qualified as an expert witness, providing testimony for cases in the states of IL, DC, VA, NY and MD, and for zoning hearings in IL, IN, MI, NY, HI, OH, KY, CO, PA, WI and MO. Andrew has also performed appraisal review assignments for accounting purposes (audit support), asset management, litigation and as an evaluator for a large Midwest regional bank. Andrew has earned the professional designation of Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI). He has also qualified for certified general commercial real estate appraiser licenses in AZ, CA, IL, IN, WI, MD, OH, NY, NJ, FL,GA, KY and DC. Temporary licenses have been granted in CT, CO, PA, ID, MS, KS, MT and SC. Education • Syracuse University: Bachelor of Fine Arts • MAI Designation (Member of the Appraisal Institute) Professional Affiliations • Counselors of Real Estate (CRE) • Chicago Chapter of the Appraisal Institute • International Real Estate Management (IREM) National Council of Housing and Market Analysts (NCHMA) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Cohn ReZ n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 131 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 a Erin C. Bowen, MAI Director — Real Estate Valuation Valuation Advisory Services 858-349-8854 erin.bowen@cohnreznick.com www.cohnreznick.com Erin Bowen, MAI is a Director with CohnReznick in Valuation Advisory Services. Ms. Bowen is based in Phoenix, Arizona, with presence covering the west coast. Ms. Bowen's work in Commercial Real Estate valuation spans over 12 years. Ms. Bowen specializes in lodging, cannabis, seniors housing, large scale retail and multifamily conversion properties. Lodging work includes all hotel property types and brand segments including limited, full service and resort properties; additionally, Ms. Bowen has appraised numerous hotel to multifamily conversion properties including market rate and affordable housing. Cannabis work includes dispensaries, cultivation facilities including specialized indoor facilities and greenhouse properties, processing and manufacturing facilities. Senior's housing assignments include assisted living, skilled nursing facilities and rehabilitation centers. Retail work spans power centers, lifestyle centers, outlet centers and malls. She has appraised numerous additional properties including multifamily, office, medical office, industrial, churches, and vacant land. Ms. Bowen has expertise in appraising properties at all stages of development, including existing as is, proposed, under construction, renovations and conversion to alternate use. Valuations have been completed nationwide for a variety of assignments including mortgage financing, litigation, eminent domain, tax appeal, estate gifts, asset management, as well as valuation for financial reporting including purchase price allocations (ASC 805). Impact Study Reports have also been generated for zoning hearings related to the development of solar facilities and wind powered facilities. Ms. Bowen has qualified as an expert witness and provided testimony for zoning and county commission hearings. Education Bachelor of Arts, Psychology, Theater, University of California, San Diego 2007, College Honors Professional Affiliations 0 Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute Licenses • State of Arizona (Certification #32052) • State of California (Certification #AG3004919) State of Nevada (Certification #A.0208032 -CG) State of Oregon (Certification #C001551) Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n ReZ n I C k modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ipiQai WI ha 1.49: i� Gul s d WI d 5 Gulha�i d ■ ■ lul ■ ■ ■ '-" lil ® ® ■ ■ ® ® ® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Prepared for Pivot Energy Development, LLC Page 1 132 ........................................................... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Joe Ficenec Consultant, Valuation Advisory Services 41 621 Capital Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 916-930-5237 joe.ficenec@cohnreznick.com www.cohnreznick.com Joe Ficenec is a consultant in CohnReznick's Valuation Advisory Services practice and is based in the Sacramento office. Joe specializes in Impact Study Reports, which have been conducted for zoning hearings related to the development of solar facilities and wind powered facilities. He also has experience in assisting with the appraisal multifamily, office, industrial, retail, lodging and mixed -use properties for financing and purchase price allocation purposes. Joe graduated with honors from the University of California, Davis in May 2017 with a major in managerial economics. Prior to joining CohnReznick, Joe worked as a Real Estate Assessor for a county government and as a consultant for a nationwide real estate firm in San Francisco. Education cUniversity of California, Davis — B.S. Managerial Economics Disclaimer This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (Pivot Energy Development, LLC and the client's legal and site development professionals) and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or Co h n Rez n I C k 0 modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Weld County Treasurer Statement of Taxes Due Account Number R8956934 Assessed To Parcel 0553 I 5100017 SMITH CHAD R 15864 COUNTY ROAD 94 PIERCE. CO 80650-9706 Legal Description PT NF.4 15-8-66 COMM N4 SEC COR 'CH S89D57E 2641.35 S40D0I W 3214 89 N 171)16W 2579.36 N89D39E 192.17 TPOB Situs Address 15864 COUNTY ROAD 94 WELD Year Tax Charge 'Fax Interest Fees Payments Balance 2023 $1,099.02 $0.00 $0.00 ($549.51) $549.51 •Total 'Fax Charge $549.51 First Half Due as of 03/05/2024 Second Half Due as of 03/05/2024 S0.00 1549.51 Tax Billed at 2023 Rates for Tax Arca 0916 - 0916 Authority WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DIST RE9-AU LT NORTHERN COLOR/MX) WATER (NC NUNN FIRE AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE. HIGH PLAINS LIBRARY WEST GREELEY CONSERVATION Taxes Billed 2023 * Credit Levy Mill Levy 12.0240000* 23 2820000* 0000000 4.0000000 6.3360000 3 1960000 0.4140000 Amount $262.97 $509.18 $21.87 $87.48 $138.57 $69.90 $9.05 50.2520000 $1,099.02 Values AG -DRY FARM LAND AG -WASTE LAND FARM/RANCH RESIDENCE -IMPS Total Actual $9.150 $15 $345,097 Assessed $2,420 $10 $23,120 $354,262 $25,550 ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES. CHANGES MAY OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER THE FOLLOWING DATES: PERSONAL PROPERTY, REAL PROPERTY, AND MOBILE HOMES - AUGUST 1. TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION AMOUNTS MUST BE PAID BY CASH OR CASHIER'S CHECK. POSTMARKS ARE NOT ACCEPTED ON TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION PAYMENTS PAYMENTS MUST BE IN OUR OFFICE AND PROCESSED BY THE LAST BUSINESS DAY OF THE MONTH Weld County Treasurer's Office 1400 N 17th Avenue PO Box 458 Greeley. CO 80632 Phone: 970-400-3290 Pursuant to the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, the attached Statement of Taxes Due issued by the Weld County Treasurer, are evidence of the status as of this date of all property taxes, special assessments, and prior tax liens attached to this account •V11)/V Signed. Current year's t xes are due but not delinquent. vvp-Rak,ti Date: OA Hello