The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20111778.tiff BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO A COURT USE ONLY A 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Docket Number: 57763 Petitioner: VESTAS BLADES AMERICA, INC., Schedule No. R6778002 v. Respondent: WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Name: Thomas E. Downey, Jr., #9686 Address: DOWNEY & ASSOCIATES, PC 383 Inverness Parkway, Suite 300 Englewood, Colorado 80112 Telephone Number: (303)813-1111 Fax Number: (303)813-1122 E-mail: tomdowneylawpc.com ENTRY OF APPEARANCE The undersigned hereby enters his appearance as counsel of record for the Petitioner, Vestas Blades America, Inc. (Docket No. 57763). DATED this,)7l day of October, 2011. Respectfully submitted, (1)Thomas E. Downey, Jr. 1 Attorney for Petitioner Vj YvNkYNWru CSC 0.5 QC R Ssl2, Ck� 1 G I 1 -17 7 11-n- tl 11,-4 -11 ñ 5 C °-7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 2-C day of October, 2011, service of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE was effected by placing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following: Mr. J. Michael Beery Board of Assessment Appeals State of Colorado 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Stephanie L. Arries Assistant Weld County Attorney Weld County Attorney's Office 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Weld County Board of Equalization 915 10"' Street Greeley, CO 80632 M A 16220 N Scottsdale Road Ryan / -.. Suite 650 ,® Scottsdale,Arizona 85254 Innovative Solutions Main 602.955.1792 to Taxing Problems. - ' Fax 602.955.4892 1 : t°;3 CERTIFIED MAIL-71791000164911120303 www.ryan.com RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED August 15, 2011 Board of Assessment Appeals COPY 1313 Sherman Street,Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Petition to State Board of Assessment Appeals Vestas Blades America, Inc., Parcel Schedule Nos: R5250708, R6778001,and R6778002 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed are the petitions and supporting documents for the above-referenced taxpayer and accounts. Ryan is a non-attorney agent for Vestas Blades America, Inc. We understand that Board rules require a Colorado attorney to appear at the hearing; the taxpayer will be appropriately represented by an attorney licensed in Colorado. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, If you have any questions or need any additional information,please contact me at 602.955.1792. Respectfully, Helen Crown Manager HC/jjr COPIES SENT THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST 2011,TOGETHER WITH PETITIONS AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS,TO: Weld County Board of Equalization 915 10th Street, Greeley, CO 80632 Certified Mail,Return Receipt Requested#71791000164911120174 Weld County Assessor 1400 N 17th Ave, Greeley, CO 80631 Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested# 71791000164911120051 Mr. Matthew Stanek Vestas Blades America, Inc. 11140 Eastman Park Drive, Windsor,CO 80550 Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested#71791000164911120198 ? i I- 17 7 Cr 7,'lI ( 777 CG MI WL4 (A,><I OYr . , A S k� I I !i 7 g . aa •/i R- I4 -tl 4 co79 PETITION TO STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Far Office Use Only 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Phone: (303)866-5880 Denver, Colorado 80203 Fax: (303)866-4485 Docket No. Fee: Y N Check/Credit Card# Date: August 15, 2011 _ o F N Property Owner: Vestas Blades America, Inc. Subject Property: 1500 E. Crown Prince Blvd. Brighton Street Address City Schedule Number(s): R6778002 (Brighton Nacelles) Attach separate sheet if necessary OBoard of Equalization Appeals the decision of the Weld ❑Board of Commissioners Dated: July 27, 2011 County O State Property Tax Administrator This Appeal concerns: 0Valuation ❑Refund/Abatement O Exemption El State Assessed Tax Year: 2011 The subject property is currently classified as: ❑Agricultural 0 Commercial ClExempt 0Industrial ❑Mixed Use 0 Natural Resources ❑Oil & Gas BO Personal L]Possessory O Producing ❑Residential OState Assessed ❑Vacant Land Interest Mines Actual Value assigned to subject property: $64,858,615 Petitioner's estimate of value: $27,000,000 Estimated time for Petitioner to present the appeal: minutes or 1.0 hours. Not less than 30 minutes. Board will allow equal time to County or Property Tax Administrator. Appearance: ❑Petitioner will be present at the hearing QPetitioner will appear by telephone ❑Petitioner will be represented by an agent Petitioner is responsible for calling the Board at 303-866-5880 0 Petitioner will be represented by an attorney on the scheduled date and time of hearing(Mountain Time Zone) 0 Petitioner would like to appear by video conference Petitioner must contact the Board at 303-866-5880 at least 20 days in advance of the scheduled hea,ing to confirm availability of video conference equipment If the property owner is an entity,it must appear under the representation of an attorney licensed in Colorado except as follows. A closely held entity may be represented by an officer of the entity as long as the amount in controversy does not exceed$10,000,exclusive of costs,interest or statutory penalties. A closely held entity can have no more than three owners. See Section 13-1-127,C.R.S. A closely held entity that will be represented by an officer of the entity must provide a letter to the Board with this petition stating that it has no more than three owners and that the tax amount at issue does not exceed$10,000.A trust filing a petition after 12/31/2010 must be represented by an attorney and must pay a$101.25 filing fee. Filing Fee: 0 None Petitioner is appearing pro se (self-represented)and has not filed more than two Petitions with the Board of Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30). ❑ $ 33.75 Petitioner is appearing pro se (self-represented)and has filed more than two Petitions with the Board of Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30). $101.25 Petitioner will be represented by an agent or by an attorney. In the space below, please explain why you disagree with the value assigned to the subject property The actual value assigned by the Weld County Board of Equalization exceeds the property's fair market value. The assessor's value fails to consider the property's limited market appeal, external obsolescence and actual market sales activity indicating a substantially lower value. Required attachments to this form: 2 Assessor's or Property Tax Administrator's Notice of Valuation or Notice of Denial 0 Decision of County Board of Equalization, County Board of Commissioners or Property Tax Administrator Attachments required under certain circumstances: 2 A notarized Letter of Authorization if an agent will be representing Petitioner 0 A list of names, last known addresses and telephone numbers of co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject property if applicable. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed, faxed or hand delivered to' • and of Equalization Weld ❑Board of Commissioners County ()State Property Tax Administrator at the following address: 915 10th Street, Greeley, CO 80632 on August 15, 2011 • Date I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed, faxed or hand delivered to all co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject property on August 15, 2011 • - - Date I hereby certify that four (4) true and correct copies of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed or hand delivered to the Board of Assessment Appeals at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315, Denver, CO 80203 on August 15, 2011 Date (One copy may be faxed to the Board but the original and two additional copies must be mailed or hand delivered.) . Petitioner's Mailing Address Required Even if Petitioner is Represented by An Agent or Attorney (per C.R.S. 39-8-1091 /4 Signature of%gent ® or orney O Signature of Petitioner Mark LoRusso Vestas Blades America, Inc. Printed Name Printed Name 16220 N Scottsdale Road, Suite 650 11140 Eastman Park Drive Mailing Address Mailing Address Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Windsor, CO 80550 City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code Telephone: 602.955.1792 Telephone: 303.655.5705 Daytime number E-Mail: Mark.LoRusso@Ryan.corn E-Mail: mastn@vestas.com Attorney Reg. No.: It is the Petitioner's responsibility to notify the BAA of any change of address. Petitioners are strongly encouraged to read the Instructions and Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals prior to completing this Petition Form. The Instructions and Rules are available on the Web at www.dola.Colorado.gov/baa or may be requested by phone at 303-866-5880. - to d CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 336-7215, Ext. 4226 FAX: ( 0) 352-0242 P. BOX P. O. 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 11.19€ COLORADO July 28, 2011 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC 11140 EASTMAN PARK DRIVE WINDSOR, CO 80550 RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 2011, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO - DENY PETITIONER'S APPEAL AND AFFIRM ASSESSOR'S VALUE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: ACCOUNT #: R6778002 PARCEL #: 147129301002 - PT L1 BLK 1 VESTAS BLADES & NACELLA CAMPUS FG #1 THAT PT LYING S2 OF SEC 29 Dear Petitioner: On July 27, 2011,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, convened, and acting as the Board of Equalization, pursuant to Section 39-8-101, C.R.S., et.seq., considered your petition of appeal of the County Assessor's valuation of your property described above, for the year 2011. The Board of Equalization found that the evidence presented at the hearing supported the value placed upon your above described property as set below. Such evidence indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies, percentages, figures and formulas dictated by law. The assessment and valuation is set as follows: ACTUAL VALUE AS ACTUAL VALUE AS DETERMINED BY SET BY BOARD ASSESSOR $64,858,615 $64,858,615 FillgOIREVan ALI AUG 0 1 2011 ig BY: ............ ........... 2011-1778 AS0079 • VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC - R6778002 • Page 2 A denial of a petition, in whole or in part, by the Board of Equalization may be appealed by selecting one of the following three options; however, said appeal must be filed within 30 days of the denial: 1. Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's(CBOE's) decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals(BAA). Such hearing is the final hearing at which testimony, exhibits, or any other evidence may be introduced. If the decision of the BAA is further appealed to the Court of Appeals, only the record created at the BAA hearing shall be the basis for the Court's decision. No new evidence can be introduced at the Court of Appeals. (Section 39-8-108(10), C.R.S.) Appeals to the BAA must be made on forms furnished by the BAA, and such appeals should be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of denial by the CBOE to: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-866-5880 NOTE: On or after August 10, 2011, any appeal of the valuation of rent- producing commercial real property to the Board of Assessment Appeals shall provide to the County Board of Equalization the following information within ninety (90) days after the appeal is filed. For two full years, including the base year for the relevant property tax year: (1) actual annual rental income (2) tenant reimbursements (3) itemized expenses (4) rent roll data, including the name of any tenants, the address, unit, or suite number of the subject property,lease start and end dates, option terms, base rent, square footage leased, and vacant space Fees: A taxpayer representing himself is not charged for the first two appeals to the Board of Assessment Appeals; however, a taxpayer being represented by an agent or an attorney must submit a fee of$101.25 per appeal. OR 2. District Court: You have the right to appeal the CBOE's decision to the District Court of the county wherein your property is located. New testimony, exhibits or any other evidence may be introduced at the District Court hearing. For filing requirements, please contact your attorney or the Clerk of the District Court. Further appeal of the District Court's decision is made to the Court of Appeals for a review of the record. (Section 39-8-108(1), C.R.S.) OR 2011-1778 AS0079 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC - R6778002 Page 3 3. Binding Arbitration: You have the right to submit your case to arbitration. If you choose this option the arbitrator's decision is final and your right to appeal your current valuation ends. (Section 39-8-108.5, C.R:S.) Selecting the Arbitrator: In order to pursue arbitration, you must notify the OBOE of your intent. You and the CBOE select an arbitrator from the official list of qualified people. If you cannot agree on an arbitrator, the District Court of the county in which the property is located will make the selection. Arbitration Hearing Procedure: Arbitration hearings are held within sixty days from the date the arbitrator is selected. Both you and the CBOE are entitled to participate. The hearings are informal. The arbitrator has the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses, books, records, documents and other evidence. He also has the power to administer oaths, and all questions of law and fact shall be determined by him. The arbitration hearing may be confidential and closed to the public, upon mutual agreement. The arbitrator's written decision must be delivered to both parties personally or by registered mail within ten (10) days of the hearing. Such decision is final and not subject to review. Fees and Expenses: The arbitrator's fees and expenses are agreed upon by you and the OBOE. In the case of residential real property, such fees and expenses cannot exceed $150.00 per case. The arbitrator's fees and expenses, not including counsel fees, are to be paid as provided in the decision. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 336-7215, Extension 4226. Very truly yours, Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor RYAN LLC STE 650 16220 N SCOTTSDALE RD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 2011-1778 AS0079 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION • Christopher M. Woodruff Date of Notice: 6/22/2011 Weld County Assessor Telephone: (970) 353-3845 or (720) 652-4255 • 1400 N 17th Ave Fax: (970) 304-6433 Greeley, CO 80631 E-mail: appeals@co.weld.co.us www.co.weld.co.us Office Hours: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM SCHEDULE/ACCOUNT NO. TAX YEAR TAX AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION/ PHYSICAL LOCATION R6778002 2011 4296 PT L1 BLK 1 VESTAS BLADES & NACELLA CAMPUS FG #1 THAT PT LYING S2 OF SEC z 29 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC 1500 E CROWN PRINCE BLVD N, a 11140 EASTMAN PARK DRIVE BRIGHTON WINDSOR,CO 80550 a O ASSESSOR'S VALUATION PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL VALUE PRIOR TO ACTUAL VALUE AFTER REVIEW REVIEW INDUSTRIAL 64,858,615 64,858,615 TOTAL $64,858,615 $64,858,615 The Assessor has carefully studied all available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest. The Assessor's determination of value after review is based on the following: CM06- The assessor's staff has requested information which is pertinent and critical to proper evaluation of your property's value. Because we have not received this information, we have no choice but to deny any adjustments. If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration, § 39-8-106(1)(a), C.R.S. The deadline for filing real property appeals is July 15. The deadline for filing personal property appeals is July 20. The Assessor establishes property values. The local taxing authorities (county, school district, city, fire protection, and other special districts) set mill levies. The mill levy requested by each taxing authority is based on a projected budget and the property tax revenue required to adequately fund the services it provides to its taxpayers. The local taxing authorities hold budget hearings in the fall. If you are concerned about mill levies, we recommend that you attend these budget hearings. Please refer to last year's tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of the local taxing authorities. Please refer to the reverse side of this notice for additional information. RONALD K MARTINDALE 16075 COLEMAN AVE FORT LUPTON CO 80621 • 3x Z',PW- 'Ys-v: ?to -1-65714 7:1:74 7/MI-4,744^ ', ;` ' 1z x' •l. crt .7 County Board of Equalization Hearings will be held from July 1 through August 5 at 915 10th Street, Greeley, CO To appeal the Assessor's decision, complete the Petition to the County Board of Equalization shown below, and mail or deliver a copy of both sides of this form to: Weld County Board of Equalization 915 1 0t'Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Telephone (970) 356-4000 Ext, 4225 To preserve your appeal rights, your Petition to the County Board of Equalization must be postmarked or delivered on or before July 15 for real property and on or before July 20 for personal property— after such date, your right to appeal is lost. You may be required to prove that you filed a timely appeal; therefore, we recommend that all correspondence be mailed with proof of mailing. You will be notified of the date and time scheduled for your hearing. The County Board of Equalization must mail a written decision to you within five business days following the date of the decision. The County Board of Equalization must conclude hearings and render decisions by August 5, § 39-8-107(2), C.R.S. If you do not receive a decision from the County Board of Equalization and you wish to continue your appeal, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by September 12, § 39-2-125(1)(e), C.R.S. If you are dissatisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision and you wish to continue your appeal, you must appeal within 30 days of the date of the County Board's written decision to ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals District Court 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 9th Avenue and 9th Street Denver, CO 80203 P.O. Box C (303) 866-5880 Greeley, Colorado 80632 www.dola.colorado.00v/baa (970) 356-4000 Ext. 4520 Binding Arbitration For a list of arbitrators, contact the County Commissioners at the address listed for the County Board of Equalization. If the date for filing any report, schedule, claim, tax return, statement, remittance, or other document falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it shall be deemed to have been timely filed if filed on the next business day, § 39-1-120(3), C.R.S. r a s a- r ,B® .=gnw ..z_ L'` :-`[le i di' '',1%-.; What is your estimate of the property's value as of June 30, 2010? (Your opinion of value in terms of a specific dollar amount is required for real property pursuant to§ 39-8-106(1.5), C.R.S.) $ 2' - , nor->i OZ.: a What is the basis for your estimate of value or your reason for requesting a review? (Please attach additional sheets as necessary and any supporting documentation, i.e., comparable sales, rent roll, original installed cost, appraisal, etc.) Pp czc� I 5( H L NLAU- Nr,. K l(lige 0)__ I, the undersigne owner/.r agent of the property identified above, affirm that the statements contained herein ann attar,' ents hereto are true and complete. Signature" Telephone Number Date ' Attach letter of authorization signed by property owner, • STA I_EMENT OF AGENCY Vestas Blades America, Inc, Hereby appoints Ryan, LLC as agent for the purpose of filing real estate arld personal property statements, renditions,returns and/or assessment appeals, applications or pent:ions for review of,valuation with all cotnties, appraisal districts and/or Assessment Appeal Boards, Boards of Review, or Boards of Equalization, appearing on our behalf before said Boards, examining any records, and discussing with the appropriate governmental authority the assessment of the property located at the following address. All real property located in Weld County, Colorado,with principal addresses of: 1140 Eastman Park Drive,Windsor 1500 East Crown Prince Boulevard,Brighton This property being owned by the undersigned incorporated in the State of Colorado. This agency shall remain in effect for the 2011 and 2012 assessment years. V s i-as 3L \i-s , INC Name of Taxpayer Sigatare NE Mar-rH /CUJ Sul IL✓// Tine 5- 7S 2O ( Date /�(Su� Subscribed and sworn to before me this ZS day of , 20 HC Notary Public P ;'61- It' State of Co/crt r/n r • it, County of klfeid i f- : �� My commission expires O( , 20 13 „ �, OE;terr July 13,2011 Page 1 0 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 336-7215, Ext. 4226 FAX: (PP. O. OX352-0242 Ij�• . O BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 Ci COLORADO July 28, 2011 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC 11140 EASTMAN PARK DRIVE WINDSOR, CO 80550 RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 2011, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO - DENY PETITIONER'S APPEAL AND AFFIRM ASSESSOR'S VALUE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: ACCOUNT #: R6778002 PARCEL #: 147129301002 - PT L1 BLK 1 VESTAS BLADES & NACELLA CAMPUS FG #1 THAT PT LYING S2 OF SEC 29 Dear Petitioner: On July 27, 2011,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,Colorado, convened, and acting as the Board of Equalization, pursuant to Section 39-8-101, C.R.S., et.seq., considered your petition of appeal of the County Assessor's valuation of your property described above, for the year 2011. The Board of Equalization found that the evidence presented at the hearing supported the value placed upon your above described property as set below. Such evidence indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies, percentages, figures and formulas dictated by law. The assessment and valuation is set as follows: ACTUAL VALUE AS ACTUAL VALUE AS DETERMINED BY SET BY BOARD ASSESSOR $64,858,615 $64,858,615 do ; AAT(eNer) /a78 D// 2011-1778 AS0079 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC - R6778002 Page 2 A denial of a petition, in whole or in part, by the Board of Equalization may be appealed by selecting one of the following three options; however, said appeal must be filed within 30 days of the denial: 1. Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's(CBOE's)decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA). Such hearing is the final hearing at which testimony, exhibits, or any other evidence may be introduced. If the decision of the BAA is further appealed to the Court of Appeals, only the record created at the BAA hearing shall be the basis for the Court's decision. No new evidence can be introduced at the Court of Appeals. (Section 39-8-108(10), C.R.S.) Appeals to the BAA must be made on forms furnished by the BAA, and such appeals should be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of denial by the CBOE to: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-866-5880 NOTE: On or after August 10, 2011, any appeal of the valuation of rent- producing commercial real property to the Board of Assessment Appeals shall provide to the County Board of Equalization the following information within ninety (90) days after the appeal is filed. For two full years, including the base year for the relevant property tax year: (1) actual annual rental income (2) tenant reimbursements (3) itemized expenses (4) rent roll data, including the name of any tenants, the address, unit, or suite number of the subject property, lease start and end dates,option terms, base rent, square footage leased, and vacant space Fees: A taxpayer representing himself is not charged for the first two appeals to the Board of Assessment Appeals; however, a taxpayer being represented by an agent or an attorney must submit a fee of$101.25 per appeal. OR 2. District Court: You have the right to appeal the CBOE's decision to the District Court of the county wherein your property is located. New testimony, exhibits or any other evidence may be introduced at the District Court hearing. For filing requirements, please contact your attorney or the Clerk of the District Court. Further appeal of the District Court's decision is made to the Court of Appeals for a review of the record. (Section 39-8-108(1), C.R.S.) OR 2011-1778 AS0079 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC - R6778002 Page 3 3. Binding Arbitration: You have the right to submit your case to arbitration. If you choose this option the arbitrator's decision is final and your right to appeal your current valuation ends. (Section 39-8-108.5, C.R.S.) Selecting the Arbitrator: In order to pursue arbitration, you must notify the CBOE of your intent. You and the CBOE select an arbitrator from the official list of qualified people. If you cannot agree on an arbitrator, the District Court of the county in which the property is located will make the selection. Arbitration Hearing Procedure: Arbitration hearings are held within sixty days from the date the arbitrator is selected. Both you and the CBOE are entitled to participate. The hearings are informal. The arbitrator has the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses, books, records, documents and other evidence. He also has the power to administer oaths, and all questions of law and fact shall be determined by him. The arbitration hearing may be confidential and closed to the public, upon mutual agreement. The arbitrator's written decision must be delivered to both parties personally or by registered mail within ten (10) days of the hearing. Such decision is final and not subject to review. Fees and Expenses: The arbitrator's fees and expenses are agreed upon by you and the CBOE. In the case of residential real property, such fees and expenses cannot exceed $150.00 per case. The arbitrator's fees and expenses, not including counsel fees, are to be paid as provided in the decision. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 336-7215, Extension 4226. Very truly yours, Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor RYAN LLC STE 650 16220 N SCOTTSDALE RD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 2011-1778 AS0079 Weld County CHRISTOPHER M.WOODRUFF COUNTY ASSESSOR BRENDA DONES,DEPUTY ASSESSOR VALUATION REPORT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR Weld County Board of Equalization VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC PETITIONER VS. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE RESPONDENT Parcel Number: 0807-25-2-02-001 1471-29-2-01-001 1471-29-2-01-002 Schedule Number: R5250708 R6778001 R6778002 Log Number: 5426 Date: 27 July 2011 Time: 4:30 PM Board: CBOE PREPARED BY WADE J.MELIES WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF APPRAISER ASSESSOR'S VALUE Windsor Blades $69,672,339 Brighton Blades $89,336,207 Brighton Nacelle $64,858,615 Total: $223,867,161 CBOE_COMM_C11 Pal SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Purpose of Appraisal To determine Actual Value as of 1/1/11 based on an appraisal date of 6/30/10. Property Rights Appraised Unencumbered fee simple interest. Location 11140 Eastman Park Dr Windsor 1500 E Crown Prince Blvd, No. B &N Brighton Land Area 251 Acres or 10,930,936 Square Feet Property Type Commercial Wind Turbine Blades Manufacturing Wind Turbine Blades Manufacturing Wind Turbine Nacelle Manufacturing Year Built 2007 thru 2011 and continuing Quality Good Class Metal Frame Number of Stories 1 and 2 Improvement Sq. Ft. 1,184,762 Value Indications: Land $21,069,128 Cost Approach $223,867,161 Market Approach N/A Income Approach N/A Final Value $223,867,161 CBOE_COMM_O P The Windsor Blades Plant ipf ,. \ 1 .. MIMS _ Mir 1 FM' •- ! s - a All ,-- . sews~, r^ I _slit", Mal: ' . . rt. MIE Y_!_: OE- Y '\ ( J ►0' - t)421 . • ag -• .,, i Rillir • rilla .•--- • I 4: a r t 4 ri; ' rel .. • , _- _ 1 isif _ e • r-4,1 r .-- .4Y A. - i� Aerial View from Google 340' o n Blade Finish -g 94' Ea' 41' , 0 79' 2 141' N m ,� Office Stout.R r.x o►aa, '.,.0 d Ru4•W prtii I• • :, 'krvd'en 1:116.0`. 1 81' craw 167•l7L00 r' -j l' ' 94' 1 - n . ^ 239' H t7, IT,, 330' : "Cr ti 179' t , Addition Phase 111 ul t Pro-Proq Phase 1t to 94' a er Blode Shop 65509.2 sf 2922O.O si co b T._.a '" 46' WH 46' WM fit:: : ,., N 0 177' 1� ",�N 159' ' �,•+g 1S9' u1 136' 5s. w 42 13' WH .J \ �9hlrnoda Bldg Ph 1100 - ' �� 180 •15 \Y11 71 v? 31534.0 sf Root Joint Phase II in ` Dk., 33964.0 sf 2.'0 It�- yr.:.1 181,6.9 al T. l07 I 46 Mt in Addition Ph It! lg. I .t;•_ Tv^as it.. 13230.0 sf 204' tee' slafoh W Pm Mama" Sketch CBOE_COMM_01 Pa Windsor Blade Photos • • - • - .�--� - MINI. _wir • 01 !04,'2008 04/07:2Gut • 04/07/2008 �, 1 1L. 04/07;'?'^ rH : _ . r • ■ PSIS S e � s ^ my 4 - 12/ 14/2010 ti I 12/14/2010 CBOE_COMM_01 Pa Windsor Blades General Description The Windsor Blades plant is located on the east side of Windsor on Eastman Park Drive in the Great Western Industrial Park. The plant is adjacent Owens Illinois Bottle and Hexcel Manufacturing. It is new Front Range Energy and Eastman Kodak. It is located on 72.76 acres entirely fenced and landscaped. There are a total of 5 buildings with a total of 403,704 square feet of gross building area. Construction began in 2007 and is still underway. The buildings are of good quality and of typical condition. The buildings were built specifically for the manufacturing of Wind Turbine Blades. These Special Purpose buildings are designed with some of the following characteristics; Heavy and Light Manufacturing, Industrial Office, Cafeteria, Service Garage, Equipment Shed, and Guard Shack. Building two, originally tl stand alone paint building is now attached to building one. Building one is the main manufacturing and office building; it was built in multiple phases and is considered 91% complete. This building was specifically built and being modified for the purpose of manufacturing wind turbine blades and contains approximately 360,000 square feet. As a result there a many features built into the building that significantly increase the cost to build. The following are just few of these features; • Story height of 46 feet and clear span of 130 to 180 feet. Clears spans of these heights and length have a spreading effect on the footings. Therefore the footings must be tied together. • There are crane rail components built into the structural supports. Several portions of the buildi have multiple cranes. • Mixed occupancies include office, light and heavy manufacturing,and hazardous material use an( storage. Building code requires several features that attribute to increased expense. o There must be separation walls between uses. Where there are hazardous materials involved the separation walls must have higher fire ratings. Example: two and three hour ratings rather than one hour. o Where the separation walls require higher fire ratings, the doors must a higher rating. W some doors close automatically when there is a fire. o Areas with hazardous occupancies must have separate HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems that are independent of the other occupancies. • The fire suppression system required for this type of facility is very extensive and precise. Fire code requires some of the following items; o There must be systems in place to contain 20 minutes of flow from the sprinkler system. o There must be isolation doors to keep fires from spreading from one section to another. CBOE_COMM_0 P o For buildings this size automated smoke and heat vents in the roof are required. • Special flooring support for manufacturing equipment. An example of this is the trenches in the floor for the transport system in the automated paint building. The 2011 Notice of Value indicated the improvements cost value was $76,341,546. After further review, considering building one is considered 91% complete, and applying some physical depreciation a revise cost is presented. A summary of total costs are as follows, a detail cost profile may be found in the addendum. Windsor Blades Plant Cost 403,704 square feet @ $158.84 per square foot = estimated cost $64,125,669 C80E_COMM_U P The Brighton Blades Plant - , f t ' >._ *Pligit We t. I .:1 --.0 1' ',it 4 I; Ii 11 I - wt.. tin . , -. - _ _ -ill I . -•k .t , , , . lit p — .# 0 0 ►. ' .`" "tom C_l -'• , r ! , 1 1 If__ y _ - (t{j ,.t I .- Ilan 4 ... 1 1 s visas • t • Brighton Blades Plant Aerial Lean To's IS Was 41 [ : - . j sr3sly - ]1974 3 MAIM ay SMrnoaa a 49 wM 44688.0 it 30010,0 M •t8' W n ti lot now Offal x{-104-0 If lc' #11 - t 7949.2 0 `n . 2rk1 now Offte 179441_2 st a Wafikho.,se 2}034.0 St axle Laadng R'•cs spiM+ wk 63.3 s1 1,^cading .)ock A.0 s1 A. M3.0 s' u4 :23 Wr, 0 st KW 1054' :I. '•�, >>.•, •,. Pre-s reg Productor '''s ' J ill 4 1454524 s• .r q.: ,y,. :.1:,.a si intl. 'cr L 112:_o st is r 2568.1) s1 w IV. IF tsan To's 23- W►, I 304c.4; 4.4 I f, ' .� . :4. 20:4Aeoeo�• Lean To ii Paint Bldg 1 _'.. •.. i:iwoo 46' 35052.0 O f mist, ^ 55752.0 sf 1 1 44' wH 40 w►t Tunnsl 13329.0 sf 31' wH 4. 1 _ 1 . ,l 1 404' Ili Sketch CBOE_COMM_01i Pa. Bri :hton Blades Photos . - �bssegai"-:!_.'=Est_ ►-'* 4 •.!. ,. ..; _ _F 12/14/2010 E It 06 Ill Iv MI i 0. 1 7 2 • .i t 12 14, 2010 CBOE_COMM_01 Pa Brighton Blades Plant General Description The Brighton Campus is located north of the City of Brighton within the City limit and east of Highway 85 The Campus spans north of New Energy Drive or Weld County Road 4 to E Crown Prince Blvd. or Weld County Road 8. Weld County Road 20 is a few blocks west of the campus. The campus is made up of several parcels. The greater part of the campus is fenced and landscaped. The blades plant itself is on a single parcel that has 112.4 acres on the northern portion of the campus. The Brighton Blades plant consists of three buildings. The service garage is utilized by the entire Bright( Campus. The Brighton Blades Plant is slightly larger and has nearly the identical features as the Windsor Blades Plant. The one exception to this is the Brighton Blades Plant was built in a single phase resulting a slightly different cost to build. Building one of Brighton Plant includes the paint area. The main buildit contains approximately 506,700 square feet and is considered 90% complete as of January 1, 2011. The is a small portion of rail spur located on the west side of the blades parcel. Building one is 90% complete,a summary of total costs are as follows, and a detail cost profile may be found in the addendum. Brighton Blades Plant Cost 506,691 square feet @ $157.00 per square foot = estimated cost $79,543,919 CBOE COMM_O The Bri • hton Nacelle Plant y ` . 1 •t . �`- ♦ +♦ • ma _ _ 1, . n k 4,3/4. ` � • • •► m ' ' • - • It♦ . rk 1A• i • + " rail - r ' $ lailh gliertar Illti. bon araik- As 'y r ___ylws "sill 4 R ' Millaillinia.!.................alliallif - ... i Aerial Photo as. 77.0 77 5' 3 Second g �3' °` gWpckc 24 Vol 13'V114 11WN it an MAO 26.1 77,6' 77 0' 77.8' P. °7 Locker Room 1a Locke'Room; 1° Locker Room r, I 1424E st 3 1924.3 sf I 4 1924.3 el' { - 7614' First Floc( 222054.4 sf 51 • S4 WH Spr1n►�errd HanutaccutInq SI ZI a A N 94.7' 1st Floor Office Warehouse 7•53' 18249.8 sf o ►� + M 470,40 uKi ., 2nd Floor Office a 31' WH 's 18249.8 sf 30'WH 3...8 72.4' 139.7 Sketch CBOE_COMM_0' Paf Bri : hton hton Nacelle Photos • ill t ' Sf II Oft IS L If• _ .. •- 01 / 07/ 2010 12/14/2010 w' ' +� C. 4 - -A 1 11_ 4_, 10,10r/A I/4 pre. Or 4tir lei 12/14 /2010 CBOE COMM_0' Pac Brighton Nacelle Plant General Description The Nacelle Plant is located on a single parcel within the Brighton campus and contains 65.77 acres. The Nacelle Plant was specifically built for the manufacturing of the nacelle of a wind turbine. The nacelle sit atop the tower and contains the gear box, low and high speed shafts, generator, controller, and brake. Tl Nacelle plant has two buildings, the main manufacturing plant and a guard shack. The guard shack is utilized by the entire Brighton Campus. Building one is a Special Purpose building built with some of the following characteristics; Heavy and Light Manufacturing, Office,Warehousing, and a Cafeteria. The building contains approximately 273,90( square feet. The nacelle building has a story height of approximately 52 feet over the manufacturing are and approximately 32 feet over the office and warehouse area. According to plans,the building is designed to support 29 cranes ranging in capacity from 1 ton to 80 tons. The cranes and bridges are consider personnel property, however the rails the bridges operate on are part of the structural support of the building. Rather than clear span there are excess support columns. Extra expense was incurred fc footings and foundation to support such loads. As with the blades plants the nacelle plant has multiple occupancies in close proximity to each other, building code requires occupancy separation walls. The nacelle plant is fully sprinklered with automatic smoke and heat vents.The Nacelle parcel has the larges portion of the rail spur located on the west side of the parcel. A summary of total costs are as follows,a detail cost profile may be found in the addendum. Brighton Nacelle Plant Cost 274,367 square feet @ $215.50 per square foot = estimated cost $59,128,445 CBOE_COMM_O' Pac COST APPROACH SUMMARY The Assessor is currently using Marshall and Swift cost tables for the cost approach of commercial properties in Weld County,which has been approved by the Division of Property Taxation to be utilized by Colorado Assessors. The structure has been classified properly utilizing the Marshall and Swift Valuation service and an appropriate value assigned. A land value has likewise been established through the utilization of vacant land sales of comparable properties. Improvement Value $202,798,033 persf $171 Land Value $ 21,069,128 TOTAL VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH $223,867,161 persf $189 Actual Costs The actual costs for the Windsor Blade Plant were asked for but not supplied. However during the initia inspection Vestas supplied costs for Phase I and Phase II, see addendum. The following chart summarize Phase Square Feet Cost Cost per S.F. Phase I 173,941 $42,676,799 $245.35 Phase II 162,994 $35,191,843 $215.91 Totals 336,935 $77,868,642 231.10 The actual cost for the Brighton Campus (Brighton Blades and Nacelle plants) where supplied, see addendum. The total cost of the Brighton Campus was $154,194,822 or$197.42 per square foot. Actual costs do not include land purchases. Total Costs Supplied $232,063,464 Total Costs Supplied per S.F. $208 CBOE_COMM_O Pa., LAND VALUE Sales utilized to establish the value in the subject neighborhood are from 2009 and the first six months o the 2010 market for the 2011 assessment date. The comparative sales approach is the most reliable method of land valuation. Pursuant to 39-104-(10.2) (c) C. R. S.,the Assessor may utilize sales from July 2005 through June 2010 to establish the proper value, if sufficient information is not available in the prk 18 months. Also, comparables outside the subject property area may be used. The Weld County Assess() has an established ongoing sales confirmation and validation program for property transactions used in developing value. The total land size of the subject's 3 parcels is 10,930,936 square feet. Comparable commercial land in Weld County ranges from $1.74 to $2.39 per sq ft. A value of$1.93 per square foot was chosen to be applicable for the subject property when considering its locations. Parcel Number Sale Date Sale Price Land Size Per S.F. Buyer Comparable 1 080725202001 4/17/07 $5,500,000 3,169,707 $1.74 Vestas Comparable 2 131334336001 7/2/2009 $1,740,100 870,032 $2.00 US Engineering Comparable 3 080722317005 12/31/09 $1,115,000 529,292 $1.90 Warren Fed Credit Unio Comparable 4 131335000001 9/1/2009 $7,192,300 3,010,867 $2.39 United Hospital ASSESSOR'S SUBJECT LAND VALUE $21,069,128 CBOE_COMM_O Pa Land Sale Comparable Map I "' " WELD COUNTY Colorado e , . 47 Iv Propetty Information Portal Windsor Blades Plant iff- t, .• . Layers... Imager, and Comp 1 ill 85 u k - ."°' ,... SEVERANCE • Si EATON. . `1.'a ;a(#,�. • :,..+. . , Z :p t , . :r , !u } ...cs. �' .�. a Comp 3 N• 1' °/el.1 I .•n . , • , �c t • • .. 34 34 , ti . r- I 41 .� -l'�i - f 1a• �: k ]. ,�. : • EVANS • •$ I Ara4 JOFNSTOWN ' 1, • . J J.I r . ri BERTHOUD % GILCREST I.: A `. t ti +.. •� r -• fit .P 4. i . > # b • PtATTEVILLE °II SINS '" r ~' . • t_ Brighton r , s . . IRESTOAE • ' Blades & _ rte' • 85 ' r. Comp 2 �• ` Nacelle Plants ,. ,� � . _ A� FREDERICK F r �„ `G~ a` ' r c' as ' , a.4 ` �"h1 1 a elfOS Comp 4 a iiiIIIIII �:: � ' }. ► .''' -�,r• ' life ' 1 �17 ri, r? . d '11 m( m t ` It 1c e S ' ! • s ` iT '1 C •� �'�� L ' • `` .• ` I L0'5• gE+'t 740° Warn I CBOE_COMM_0• Pa£ MARKET APPROACH SUMMARY The subject properties are Special Purpose buildings,built for the production of wind turbine blades and nacelles. A search for sales of similar Special Purpose properties was completed with no sales found. With no data to analyze, the Market Approach the Value is thought to be not applicable. VALUE As INDICATED BY THE MARKET APPROACH N/A INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE The subject properties are Special Purpose buildings, built for the production of wind turbine blades am nacelles. Inquires where made for lease information of similar buildings or buildings that could be used similarly. No applicable leases where found. With no data to analyze the Income Approach to Value is thought to be not applicable. TOTAL INCOME VALUE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY N/A CBOE_COMM_0 Pa CONCLUSION Real property for the tax year 2011 must be valued utilizing the level of value for the period of one and one-half years immediately prior to June 30th, 2010. A period of five years immediately prior to July 1, 2010 shall be utilized to determine the level of value if adequate data is not available from such one and one-half year period to adequately determine the level of value for a class of property. Said level of value shall be adjusted to the final day of the data-gathering period. Changes occurring between base years are not to be accounted for until the following level of value is implemented, other than additions, change in use, detrimental acts of nature, damage due to fire, etc., creation of a condominium, new regulations restricting or increasing the use of the land, or a combination thereof{39-1-104(11)(b)(I), CRS}. The subject property has been classified as Commercial Property for assessment purposes. Commercial property value shall be determined by appropriate consideration of the Cost Approach, Market Approac and Income Approach to value. {39-1-103(5)(a) C.R.S.} The Assessor has considered all three approaches t value for the subject parcel on appeal. FINAL RECONCILIATION After consideration of the cost approach, it is the Weld County Assessor's opinion that the value of $236,083,038 most accurately reflects the value of the subject property in Weld County for the 2011 tax year. COST APPROACH MARKET APPROACH INCOME APPROACH $223,867,161 N/A N/A ASSESSOR'S VALUE Industrial Windsor Blades Plant $ 69,672,339 Industrial Brighton Blades Plant $ 89,336,207 Industrial Brighton Nacelle Plant $ 64,858,615 Total: $223,867,161 CBOE_COMM_C Pa APPRAISAL STANDARDS AND ETHICS CERTIFICATION I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and is my personal unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report,and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the opinion or conclusions in, of the use of, this report. My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformit with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. Id<A) #2221"" Wade J Melies Commercial Appraiser Colorado Certified General Appraiser CG40036400 CBOE_COMM_O Pal Addendum CBOE_COMM_O Pa[ Windsor Blades Partial Costs Vestas Blades Americas 1 Phase I & II Square Footages & Costs Phase I Square Feet Costs New Construction Paint Hall 22,900 Paint Kitchen 1 ,500 Finish 47,084 Mold 60,720 Cutting 10.280 Admin 15.366 Rack Storage 16.082 a eITot Phase II Square Feet Costs New Construction Shimoda 35.813 Root Joint 36, 736 Pre Preg 64.659 Total 137,208 Renovations Existing Administration 2 ,836 Main Dorn 20: 750 Main Dorn Offices 2 ,200 Total 25,786 _� r, . ,' x � CBOE_COMM_01 Pag Brighton Campus Costs WORKING BUDGET v44w Wren She Dan Date: WWIO3 036 MI: 41/7011 MWepoon Mn somi 411{pt704 3n4n!Meet !Coin Ore MWfabY fsM01l W9 Maned Ml DM Om YIYY Coots Y11 Rai rme Coin pan te9E59 S S.I09 3.69 $ - Mtni Fence Cerp009 3031 $ 92.569 9;59 3 • Spat nal Mae Company C 1073 5 3.600 3.531 1 `m Spot WI 1aae Gunplay-(01133 1 4.105 4155 5 YF M fence Cowan,-001139 S LOS - $ 5.410 lea NM. S - S M.70 1 MM 4 IN1M YOM $ MM $ MW $Mlye 51134 eunpab S 76.56 54517 S 19,711 IOrm1Ye5130Cuepaw-00136 S 5 1 25.270 24279 S WI.Contrarian COI MI6 5 3.311 9.351 1 ariwa 5 MC4M 4 175.708 $ 1410 $ 356567 MAN 4 1 31740 kyle Cmervny/a CO3170 5 2791r0 71470 $ SYr/Mp4wl4y 4 M1pb S MAM $ YL90 5 91104 M.Mi 1 $ OIL OA Kenny 5Lev9.CO 303 S 300.1165 056145 5 44105ewWlya-CC$342 5 32.117 0.147 5 Spit Rai fence Canpan CC1046 S 14.564 13456 S 5477 ni fence Company (0 3 114 $ 2,130 }30 5 8031)cnNx3M-pmymn coati., CJ poM 5 2.701 2.701 5 591Y/awn Ti-SyneIn4Ind. 1056280 Meek 4 Mae I NMI $ 103.151 - - $ - 1 YLtlf Meese Truck Yap 5 MN S MAY MN 9.065 5 17.341 $ flw 8/18141 81"3,3 To.,,,,w. 20.034 7.953 $ 57147 lsY 1lemem bray lam 4 Mee $ IM8le 4 M.40 AM MAN S 4 HMO Scan(04111x16 NMks Caron CO 1005 39190 34690 5 Mr15Ny54w1 5 a 5 O56.411 S 1441M 156756 sans S $ lam Roche Cananv, 91.070 91.930 5 Rothe Cms•Innmrs CO3 To 3,470 105 S ,3,M(murun yr,-If)1 In 632 670 S Rate Gnmpna, COI 44 1.391 1.391 5 MSM,daan 19.635 46634 3 IM9eiroleum-(03001 19840 1&E0 $ MA u,.444 /5wa I NAYS 3 UMW 5 3.15.456 S 4MSY 3.044239 AMMO $ YM $ IM MO 0112 M r4.=SiMM $ - 1 MAN 4 Yb44 LMM i 0.40 MM $ UMW Yon Cs11a1M Pan.(*4.10450 CO9056 4833 1.333 Sian Contra-1M - .M pI(mart CO 0057 5.9.491 354015 1. Sitar 1a1M 3.7403 Oxman CO 1091 37,1/4 37.93 Si a,[aa:IM.11Ae Conran c00093 12.795 12.195 Yon!1a1M 8ANM heeen-(00110 12132 1202 - k or MM*7443Cmva3.003117 1531/33 179979 30934 Yon(alra064 3mr4 astute, alII13 571.016 551200 19.56 4na6 Mo,btes Irene./ProcluctIon 00.610 70229 10.351 9ut.w S 4xrcbrts MA ei 4310 1.63 SAM 9,0.9 16033 CO1120 29.011 11M5 13.131 Me MI 4.0061000 Mot 3 - 1 435,54 3 04M UNM 41456 0111 4 0.510.550 MAN GMMUSICTAL $ MOWN 5 0144.56$ MSMN5 U S4M 3..14564 Ma $ 05344456 MOMS MMUS M1tl-NYMM Mpagaln4r Mee 5 01100 $ IT.MA 5 MW 1561/4 S MOW S - 5 Mee I6e 65u n De" 5 275.170 Mang San COM WI 12161 5 12.49 5 - Seth M00e/Vherl M $ MM 5 M!M 4 MAY Y*W 1 27041 $ - 4 356563 1.164 Ca 143.319 5 14325 $ Scot ConnycInn (y)1101 14 y 152214 024852 5 12481 5 3 Yon(3601053 CO11ll14 2.711 3 133 5 MI MthekirrehOr I 45656 1 S. S !Len Mee 1 5610 S - 4 MAN sansomousunt $ a>44 S 44444 $ 4.W SOPS S Sow $ - $ 3.444 NOM 63500551 INC Confdintial CBOE_COMM_1 Pe WORKING BUDGET Vestas Blades Facility Brighton Budget Date. 3/0011 Uptbtect 4/23/7011 08wlgbn 891018*08 FI#m Risks fatal Sawn [oma Cells Data 0835134 Costs Expected Final ow Opel Rrrw rota 44t51OR CONIINlenaa 61431.110 %M/1p$ .7(.C$ a $ Waal 110111 - $ 5,5I1a General Conditions 4.148.456 18.458 $ 4376914 $ 4,714914 4,776,914 General Peaunprents 1.330,347 308245 $ 1.639.193 5 1.639.193 1.639.191 SIew6M 1,104.797 (71.345) $ 1.033,553 $ 1.033,551 1.033.553 Concrete 11,425.540 1140.9781 5 13.38.563 $ 11,384,563 11,184.563 Masonry 899,581 $ 898.581 5 998.581 898,581 Metals 1,771.541 1196.8761 $ 1.574715 5 1.514.715 1.574715 Woodland%M6cs 177,765 50.981 $ 178747 5 178,747 179,747 0,,rna,and MdYure Protection 118411 331,968 $ 458.389 $ 458,399 458,389 Dort end Wnowt 815,870 11.6101 $ 714.160 $ 714.160 734160 Knoet 3.430.405 13,796 $ 3.58,103 $ 3,58203 4504303 Ntecol en 401.530 13850 $ 437.350 $ 437.350 437,350 8948lenl 186,500 51,517 $ 139.017 $ 139,018 139.017 1ornmip. - 5 $ Special Construcbon 1,770,169 (74,8017 $ 7.695,368 $ 3,695.368 1.695368 Correvncet COMO $ 60000 $ 60403 60,000 Mechni[al 15.731703 - $ 15.131,701 $ 15,731.703 15.131.703 8880.46 13.450465 (190,9578 $ 13.859.506 $ 13,153.508 13,159.508 5%oown Payment $ $ 1461188 intimm 635.166 $ 635.366 $ 635.3666 635.366 C4n1.n44neY 3.510.00] 13.377.1851 $ 1,317,715 $ 1,117.815 1.117.715 fee 1,959.454 5 1.959,454 $ 1,959454 1.959454 Pape Order 8001 41.163 $ 41.167 $ 41.361 41.161 Pnge Order 4003 105.906 $ 105.906 $ 105.906 105,906 Pape Order CO3 113.533 5 113,533 $ 113,533 113.533 Pape order l COI 5 $ Pence Omnl MK - 167.130 $ 161,130 $ 161.130 161130 Pape Orawl 646 3.158.460 $ 2.158460 $ 3,158460 3.159460 thane Order 1007 1364,1331 $ 1364.133) $ 1364.1331 13641331 Change 0.6081009 38.531 $ 34531 $ 38.531 34531 Pape Order 8009 190.9901 $ 190.990( $ (90,.901 190.9?% PnB Order X010 (3.3037141 $ 13.103314) $ 13,303714) (3.303714) Tee Mer4106m.n 15$$1.71,4 (8.531Att) $ 5.185111 $ 01471//8 13,44,51 $ 13.178.441 NS Sale $ 141551 $ Daman$ name I0.55.YI I0.5MI$ $ • $ 11,51,48 Keefe Constructer 58,3X81 11.353,501 11.353,503 S Keefe Conwuc6n Services-CO 11 35700 35.700 $ Keel,18wuc6nServices CO41 10,699 70,699 $ Keefe COnwuc8bl Sorvicet CO l3 11.8156 73.056 $ Keefe Canwuc8m Senores CO I4 1.586 1.586 $ Keefe ConwuCtel Services-COO 5 138.531) 838.5311 $ MNe Cdnwuc0on 58,3,44.-CO Y6 14.310) (4,31015 Total VS*5814[NYe $ 13.5855 8 10.14.1181 $ 1IASa4l 11,5.811 'Leta? $ • $ 1188187 FM*P6c*v/MO**%l 6 $ 444,8 I 1.481 $ 1134441 6.211,02 5.14451 $ $ 1.3344n Keefe Conwuctb.Yrnces 1.110.635 7.110.635 $ Keefe!w,om Senores 101001 1.035 3.035 S Keefe Conwuc60 59808 CO8001 937 931 S Keefe Constructer Services Una tnnaure 41,153 41453 $ Keefe Conwurt0n Services link Enclosure co KOUI 930 930 5 Pane Cenwucron.69C. 3733,40 1733.40 5 PONS Con WecM",814.-CON 001 16,891 16,831 $ Rothe Cenwucton,Int.-(08003 35.340 15.340 $ Kane Cornet 1l0n.RR-006003 41411 41411 $ Page Convertor..Plc.101404 47.097 4091 S Pane C09t4C10n.Mc COO005 71.560 17.560 9 Pan,cmwucton.Nc nu,COG 114551 118551 $ 87(96 Constructers.Inc. COO 007 98,155 98,155 $ Roche Conwuclon,Fc COO 108 61,533) 14533) 5 Recto C6nwu5bn.hr. CO*00n 33,646 31,646 $ Kano conwecldn.4.c-CO6010 139.197) 8397971 $ Total FSWoks $ 144.8 I ;MAIL 5 1.114434 14.34.01 5.74.01 $ 8 4.144431 VIII Nfati 1 $ $Y4;5$ $ @.15An $ $ • $ • $ $ names Uee separate Wd6e9) $ $ $ NO(98 ASSOCIATIS,IN[. COnfld.ntlgl CBOE_COMM_0 Pa WORKING BUDGET Vesta.Blades v112 Expansion Brighton Budget Date: 5/2/2011 00 teed: 6/0/1000 04•00005 Male.Md.d .slid Mee 88*4S.slid Carwtted Cosa .YMY Conte 09019111•41 Caste Seated FMM 0444 0204 Nlence Cade The W lwtne00 Ce.SM2r.Cee.p.8 $ 2µ2e/04 General Conditions 118208 118.208 118.201 115,008 3.200 S Itewa 48.020 48010 48.010 48,020 COrvreu 306,470 306.470 306,410 306,410 Masonry Metals 13.225 13.725 13.125 13.725 Woods and Fl a4cs 3,000 3,000 3.000 3,005 Thermal r-0 MMaw hmecOon 85.658 85,658 135,658 85.658 Dams and Wlndews 61453 61,453 62,453 62,153 I4AAes 21,861 21,862 21,862 71,862 SFe416.s 2,950 1,950 2,950 2,950 filament unISNngs - S rydaConsoucrlon - Conveyances - Mec6avtd 613,941 613.947 613,942 612,275 1.672 6 lecirlo 3 156,502 256,501 256.502 256,501 - Bond 11.500 11.500 11,500 11,500 - LleMDylnwrences 11.300 12.300 1:300 11,300 - 25,000 - 25.000 25,000 15,000 Clone add,8301 357.010 152,010 352,010 352,015 0a;e Ceder 8003 1,681,048 0,680,068 1.681,048 1.681,048 Cage Oder 8004 12,450 12.450 12.450 12,450 C'a'ge Oder 8005 191,342 191.342 191.342 191.342 Chame Oder xO06 1,309.106 1,307,106 1,302.105 1.302.006 @age04w 8001 2.985.114 2,985.174 2,985.174 2,965.174 - CnvgeOder1008 3,438.004 3,438.004 3,438,004 1.6337,196 580,809 Chaye Oder 8009 5,208.594 5,108.594 5.108394 4,614,751 593,843 thew Order1010 1,145.100 1.145,100 1,145,100 1.021,522 123,58 Cinema 04.38011 138,468 138,46E 138,4613 60,105 71,643 Osage Oder 8012 217,056 177,056 177,056 - 277,056 MS rrerelar i.d l,ao,lM 14741,02 IMAM? 10,122,247 000345,341 2,107,201 $ 93,11;Y00 Mad Wig . 1,205/20 $ INNS $ 42 ,22 $ ia.M Keefe Constr,c60t Swats 1,497.682 $ 1,497,682 5 Keefe Corett,ct or 6.6,16.,-CON 501 1,413.317 S 1,413,327 5 - •eeleCon,lr,ceonand., C08002 23.145 5 13,145 5 Keefe C.or,rn,c6en M,Hta, COel003 387.330 $ 387,3305 - Keefe Con dnt6onServlter 008004 230,495 5 213,495 5 Keefe Cot str.alon 5.0,160,-008005 46,886 5 46,205 5 Keefe Cmnmcdor Servrtes•CO 8006 475,359 5 460,559 5 15.001 Keefe Contlmc600050,160,CO 8007 18.595 5 5 18.595 8808 Connr,ctIon Services-CON 008 318.725 5 269.212 $ 49.513 Keel,Cunnrvce'on',evoke. (08009 1,375 5 • $ 1,375 Taal VwaNtlure $ WAS'S $ 293,000 $ 4493,02 .x0209 $ 4,2.1.42 . Ken $ 0005,000 M0.124M04110IMC. Confidential CROE_COMM_C Pa Vtxhs NICSIes Brighton WORKING BUDGET la/2010 Waited: 0+5/11 /ten Dealgkn tune leldgal Budget fats ngeds ludo Carnrn4N Cable ,2a84e1<Me1a CenM84a8CNe Emended final Cane Deka Open Balance ,aanencawIEcTO1 COMMA" $ 24371.074 General Conditions 1.087,000 1,083,090 1,719,874 1.719,874 Llewo4 105,000 105,000 300,352 400,952 Concrete 2,857,000 2,857,000 3,386,744 138,744 Manny 82,000 82,000 90,780 90,700 Metals 5,600,000 203.000 5,803.000 6,106,815 6.1068015 Woods and Plastics 94,000 94,000 47,561 47,561 160,0048,Melpuee oraecaon 1381.000 • 2.387.000 2,318418 1.318.418 Doors&Wndows 352,000 352,000 571.815 571.815 sln1Aes 893.000 '43.000 1.287,819 1,187.879 5yedallie5 584,00 184,000 207,'395 107,995 E9ulpmam 35,00 35.000 40.841 43,840 Iu,NAOyz 9,000 9,000 - 'nec4l Co.st''sl0 n 137.00 137,000 - - CmM+'te+ 50,000 50,000 54,733 5.4,733 Mechnlcf 4.228.00 4,226000 5,340,439 5,540,439 Electrical 2,711,000 2,712,000 3.512,697 3.511.697 Weakly C4nuo-Melnls - 1,638 1.638 Weakly Cleanup-Labor - • 24.486 14485 Site and 610dlg 0840.0 - 11.834 17.854 err, a.Cwn.,4 LK4lay 114,000 114,000 126,241 126.242 Handana-840da.006 - 11.113 11.113 152,000 152,000 104,857 114.057 Contingency 250,000 750,00 See 797,000 647,00 156.458 756.458 Alternates/Revised Scope lams 203.000 1203.0001 • - - 4dd4lmal Change Order Scopes - - • 19.101 29,303 Change Orders 1'04.Distributed Mow - 4.159,874 4.159.874 LYed BenetICwttd 2{7,,009 4,1 $74 18847,274 $ 28887,874 $ 26,En,74 $ • $ 21097,114 Lewes aJn 81 50,.147. ceayw,9*,11 1441/51 ,:er.0.:"Jn I3 1l6641 caneeJinn-11 1590711: "nor Yda l 0 i67 nCE. Ceram 34n1•i :`1141: Charge Order.,7 13136, nan9e J,.er13 5 :240:.0!C' /har9e,040,89 5 '463394, 26,.r[7900,710 0 524458: CM1wg.:>Jrve 11 $ +,5.014; 090:946,I 11 C68rge.:6,1er I 18 1330!e, nnnge 04114 $ 73100e. 013344)8500/4I Lawry Meters $ '1391716 Twal44.re1Cwbr $ mina* 483971 i 2elan74 / arms* S *W7$n $ $ 84,ul.Bn man nsoc 80,;INC. Confidential CBOE_COMM_010 Page WORKING BUDGET v14aa Brighton Site Bullet Data: 5/20011 Il,JfS: 6/1/lull Description 'Ambit Su#w Modal Mks Pr*c3S Budget tolsttn Costs Actual Coots to COrrlll1t11W Costs Expected HS Mt* Open Saxe Cows WIN UMW • Sea Sail aantak.bola Control $ 0974361 $ 443634 $ 3.1/2.144 1 ).KLM4 $ 3~75 1 1.144 $ 9.111144 Fiore&Sc.., 5 2.810.340 S 2.814340 S Fiore&Sons CO l CO3 5 41327 5 43327 5 Fiore 6 Sons•CO 006 5 16255 S 16,255 5 Fiore ILSons CCX032 5 3.711 5 8.711 5 Hose 6Sons CO1011 $ 36.186 5 36156 S Fiore fi Sons COS 09262 5 (176.306) 5 1316306) 5 Coated;(onsirutlon Products 5 606,519 S 602.262 5 4.251 Contest Construction Products•CO X 014 5 114.406 5 111106 S Asphalt SPrrha6ks $ 396322 5 3%,323 5 Awialt Specialties CO 6 0i1 5 16,910 5 44.910 $ Asphalt Specialties CO I D12 $ 13,116 5 13,116 5 Asphalt Speciatis-003110 5 193371) 5 194571) 5 Scott(onrctp Paring Contract CO a 036 5 12,340 5 22.310 $Scott Contracting PaNpContract CO X071 5 58.630 $ 57.338 5 1.312 ScottC*tractp-Parig Contract C01073 5 46.222 5 46.212 5 Scott Contracting'CO X 029 many,A.M.kowl S 21.733 $ 21.783 5 104 PIMA $ 191401 $ (2.93638115 ►185.736 $ 1515.172 $ yst36 $ $ 5.545,150 Role 6Sons CCX488 5 116.241 5 111212 5 Asphalt Special*, S 1.740.041 5 1.114041 5 Asphalt Specialties CO 4 011 S 609.190 5 609,190 5 Asphalt Specialties-CC 8014 S 31.310 5 31.310 $ Asphalt Specialties CO X NS S 4070 $ (14740) S Asphalt Specialties CO a 063 5 24.937 $ 14.937 5 Asphalt Specialties CO X 070 S 325.216 5 32;111 5 Asphalt Specialties-CO X-no 5 1231.292) 5 (231.291) $ Scott Contracting-Paring Contract 5 2.831.566 5 2.851.566 $ Scott ContianBy Paring Contract CO 8033 5 55.194 5 55.191 5 Scott Contracting Pang Contract CO X037 5 12.632 5 12,632 5 Scott ContranSg-Paring Contract CO X 038 5 633.500 $ 633.500 5 Scott Contracting-Pasta Contract COX 039 5 304.294 $ 304294 $ Scott Contracting Paring Contract CO X061 5 3,166 5 3.165 5 Scott(muscling-Pap Contract CO le 061 5 155.932 5 155.932 5 Scott Contracting Penns Contract-CO1061 5 bat S 1041 5 Scott Contracting-Pa..Contract-001068 5 11.791 5 16.794 5 Scott Contracting Paring Crnnact CO5069 S 9.595 $ 9.395 5 Scott Contracting-Pang Comsat, CO 1025 5 5.256 5 5.256 5 Scott Contracting Paring Contract CO 9026 5 4.95D S 4950 5 Scott Cantractig.Paring Contract CO 1011 5 2.396 $ 1.896 5 Scan Contracting•Party Contract CO A09 5 1111.706) 5 1211.156) S Scan Contacting-Paring Contract COA081 5 21.141 S 27,142 5 Scan Cormact*g•Paiy Contact CO 8096 5 9,435 5 8.435 5 Kenny llecmc-CON coo $ 53.698 5 56698 $ Kenny P*cMc-COX 012 $ 1.980 5 1.900 5 Scott Contacting-CO l 049 lumen Add Ik.wl S 3.916 5 3,916 S Comae Cork Sant sal lanai $ 362.1 $ PM11N $ 11610 $ 391136 $ 441369 9 $ 136.183 Ashahalt Specialties $ 114.078 5 174.078 5 Asphalt Specialties•C01 till 5 52.267 5 52.261 $ Asphalt Specialties.C01 D63 S 11,269 5 31.268 5 Asphalt Specialties CO 6110 $ 151.569) 5 181869) 5 Scott Contracting Pa.Og Contract 5 53.800 5 53900 5 Scott Cartracting-Paring Contract-001061 $ 342 5 812 5 Yon(attracting-Prang Contract CO 1071 $ 61.139 5 11.195 $ Scott Contratngg-Pa6g(attract•C01079 {t 129 5 129 5 Total bail/PComma/Comma $ 140430 3 19330381 $ *04441 i ADMAN S 28,440344 5 1536 S 2.32.401 matr.alen $ M OS $ WWII $ Mk136 $ 191136 S 514711 $ $ 34119 S(011 Contracting-Wien Contract 5 249.969 $ 211969 S Scott Contracting ltPOer Contract-CO 8024 5 2,538 5 2.535 5 Scott CntractM'Otlitles Contract-COA005 5 21.725 5 21,725 5 Scott Contracting Wilde.Contract CO 1025 5 11.1011 S 37.104) 5 Scott Contracting-COX 029 mann.46v on., 5 5,873 5 5.523 5 Scott Contracting-CO 8 CSA rOAam Aaa I5,vet 5 2.320 S 2.310 5 Scott Contracting•COS 060 lump.Ainr Ss* S 8.132 $ 4132 5 IaWIWPara/Pr3611y11aa1 $ Mee $ (15104411 $ • S • 5 $ • Cosh Want teslxo $ 1.214151 $ 0444431 5 1113 5 11415 $ MIPS $ 5 01365 Scott Contracting-U811es Contract $ 786.128 5 756728 5 Scan Contractp-otlies Contract•CO 1044 $ 111323 5 111.823 $ Scott CCMraip'NM*,Contract CO X 001 $ 1.201 5 1.10 S Scott Contracting-Utilities Contract CO*001 5 14.587 5 11581 $ Scan Canranp-Utlties Contract CO PC09 S 10,121 5 14121 $ Scan Contractiy.Utlies Contract CO X073 S 10361 5 14961 5 Scott Contracting'CO X 019 Boon Aur rotor 5 3,075 5 3.075 5 Sons Contracting Paiy Coattail CO X011 5 300 S 800 5 HOtlt ASSOOArts.INC. Confldantial CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WORKING BUDGET VflS Brighten Site Midget Date: 5/1/1011 °Pitte: 6/5/2011 haalrion Matta Budget Mast Mde neglected fidget CalasMYwl cosh A4eMICMsa Caseated Casts Expected HS Data Octet Same Coils Orate Mern5wse $ 12]498 $ 5498 $ 5)34,14 $ 1.8101 $ 1831351 $ - $ 1.411198 Scott Contracting•teaks Contract S 1.111.242 $ 1.151.142 $ Scott CwmactM Utah.Contract CO Y 014 5 26.05E $ 264054 5 Scott Contracting•Utilities 06101-CO 4002 S 274.963 $ 221963 5 Scan Cootranfy-Uteks Contract-004025 5 9,250 S 9,280 5 Scott Contr.-ft-CO A 0261M,,t.Aanl,s. 5 2.450 S 1,450 5 Scan CcttiMttg CO to 0191usrsAm'1t.Lite, S 32046 5 32.06 $ Scot Contracting-COO M0 lWearacanl S 2550 5 2.880 S Scon Contracting-Pastry Contract•004071 S 43.190 $ 43.190 5 Ted Samar/Wet./Sant $ 3.51154 S (81.1151 $ 3074741 $ 3074141 $ 4414741 $ S 1014141 t411414ellw•Make hag $ 131667 $ (4375) $ 14.411 $ 14125 $ 14171 $ $ 18.171 Kerr McGee Gathering/Anadarko 5 152276 $ 182216 $ - SPY-. - .1a.WMkY $ NOM $ (24.514 1 11744 5 317.411 $ 117.411 1 - $ 117.413 Km McGee Gathering/Anadarko 5 111,412 S 117.412 $ Double Pio amble Si $ 1.54.98 $ 0983.55) $ 721,18 $ 711714 $ 714714 $ - $ 74714 WAPA•Ca#MR 1900 S 20.000 S 20.000 $WAY*.08•608-1905 5 1198.131 5 76735 $ - Oahe So T .EhwklMlehea Mull $ M98 $ 71.341 S 371.547 $ 314547 $ 814147 S - S 31557 4 incorporated $ 332.917 5 332917 5 - Y Incorporate-C011 $ 45.630 5 45630 5 - Veda Pia Marla(lame...•Prk.•411.1e 5 LIMN $ 14315) $ 198071 $ 1.98415 $ 1814075 S • $ 298498 Clothed Poiret S 1.011104 $ 1.07105 S United Power 5 6.799 5 4799 5 Kenny fkcnk-CO 1053 S 5014 $ 5074 $ • Gm kedge $ MM $ 44.417 S 114447 $ 31447 $ 114447 $ - $ 214441 7kel Energy 5 216.447 $ 214447 5 g4•4a/aid2 dig S 15498 $ 10.512 $ 71334 $ 1441 $ 414.313 $ - 5 3444 RA WafensmMk 5 42.924 5 42924 $ QWest S 24.177 S 24177 S Kenny Fle<tri 5 226.411 5 224411 $ Ste Weft $ Lena $ 214171 $ 111.271 $ 1.14171 S 1]4815 S 498 $ 1.211312 Kenny fkctrk 5 1.019.159 5 1.044503 5 4656 Remy EkcItic•C03017 5 1,S® S 1.500 $ Keay deca&-CO,018-•Nacelle Repots! $ 26,668 5 266601 5 - fenny flecrM-COA021"Naceee Request 5 8.221 5 4123 5 Ynmyllecac 008047 S 4,634 5 4634 S - 6amyflecnK C04048 5 13.832 S 13.82 5 Kenny Electric•C0 Y 051 5 11.633 5 17.683 5 • Kenny Cleo*-COY 02 5 50321 5 50.321 5 - Kenny fkcWe-COlc055 $ 4,611 5 4.615 S - Ke iyller Irk COY06 5 2.005 5 2.805 5 Kenny Electric-004072 5 35.515 5 35515 Tad Orya Other MGM* $ 4.40347 5 1124155) S 426281 $ 4214151 S 411445 $ 498 $ 4.314241 Ietito5ke $ 47198 $ 271.98 5 12484 $ 1.14141 5 5)3441 S $ 114454 Amens.Chi Constructai. $ .10.04 $ MOM 5 American OM Com1Mu. CCA 040 5 36.1E 5 34735 S American 0240 Constructors-CO 8 111 5 135.207) 5 (33207) S Kenny['cork•CO a 013 5 17.340 5 17,340 S Yon Contmskeg-Utilities Contract•C01024 5 11.5550 $ 11.550 5 Yon Contracting-Pastry Contras CO A 071 5 15,553 S 1543 S Scott CpvactYy-Saiy Contras CO 804 5 2.767 $ 2767 5 Southern I 96506 Landscape•CO$097 5 2900E S 294016 5 Southern I import laM.care-06110E 5 44.671 5 44671 5 Southern f pow.laauape 008125 5 5$31 S 5531 5 Aek1APkpa.nd Snstc s.6w. 5 2693 S 263 5 Nets MRdea4ry $ - $ 114987 $ 1141 S 271W $ 144(7 $ $ 111W Woods Siteleayscaps 5 27.4E 5 27.434 $ YMMn lrrpo.velad.cape 5 11.34 $ 11,383 5 swam..Epoureladscape-COK104 5 35004 5 35002 5 SOathm(spore.landscape-001113 5 4.602 $ 462 5 Kenny electk-COa C9 S 572 S 372 5 Anthem CMC9mlr9Rp. CO 8111 5 54.16 S 543% S hits $ 37144 $ (4021) $ 311411 $ 14440 $ 11414 $ 4312 5 114•4 Spat Ra45nue Company 5 55060 $ 57.275 $ 752 1101.6 ASS0OATES.INC. Confidential CBOE_COMM_01 Pag Rail Spur Costs From: Gudanowski, David[David.Gudanowski@Nolte.com] Sent: Friday,December 17,2010 10:19 AM To: Daniel Krieger Subject: RE: Railroad spur These costs are current contract values. These costs may adjust based on remaining scope and coordination with 3`d party improvements. These costs do not account for agreements with the Local Jurisdiction or Union Pacific Railroad. Grading - $3,038,276.75 Rail - $6,613,019.99 Electrical - $548,997.00 Thank you, Dave Gudanowski I Nolte Associates.In, 8000 South Chester,Suite 200 I Centennial,CO 80112 I P: 303.220.6418 I M: 720.560.2607 (• Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail CBOE_COMM_o1i Page Brighton Campus Rail Illustration Ark „ . • CBOE_COMM_010' Page Windsor Blades Plant Cost Profile WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Account 85250706 PROPERTY PROFILE Rica ass* Bel Sat: NM Saar. Apple Tear.2011 Levy:115 a of Miens Creole Om 0W2N2006 Tea 01W 4010 Maps: LEA:WND45 Actin On:20060326 Assign Ta WJM InilSls:WJM Amt Typo:Industrial WaodesOw New Glardl:O Last Updated:7Yn/2011 Ones Nan end Addams Propsryi AdBss: VESEAS BLADES AMERICAN Spat: 11140 EASTMAN PARK DR City: WINDSOR 11140 EASTMAN PARK DR WINDSOR CO 605563387 Bualrrn VESTAS BLADE FACTORY Soles Sursay —Dpwip ion WW 3raRP LI BLKI GREAT W68TFAI INOUSTiML PARK MD FG(GREATWEST6a1 MANGE() SlOaasns unit GREAT WENTON PCIATRnL PARK SUB UM FG Moat Lot Tract amnion Townddp Rags 1 1 25 06 67 Land YSatlsn Surname Abut Square (MI of Wads Valve Aala Awn Aweasd Land Type AB Cot Cods Fast Marsh. Of UMW Per Unit Vice po tel Valve Aldusp®I 3115 3,160.707 Square Feat 3160707 $175 :5,516.870.00 028 $1.608,530 Land lingual: 3168757 flstW406 saw Wedneadi r,July 27,2011 Pape I of 10 CBOE_COMM_O1i Pa81 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Pagan 115250706 PROPERTY PROFILE Pend sc 000725202001 sew tk wags: wsyo: Buildings Valuation Summary Alp AS 'SS Bldg PropertyTypa Coda Occupancy Aqua Vela Prnni% Valm 1 Commercial 3215 333-Indult Hoary Maradacbaig $57,570,847 029 $16,605.546 2 Carmacol 3215 393-Indust Heavy Maaaacirag $5,847,146 0.29 $1.605,672 3 CamnJCid 3215 183-Got 9taflm(Guard House)Scorns $23,110 029 $6,702 5 ComnmcS 3215 601-Comm Shed-Equipment $490,500 0.29 $142,245 6 Conner-al 3215 325-Service Garage $194,006 020 $58279 Marcoreamla8u'leal: $64,125,600 $It,504M4 Total Props*Value $Mh6r4230 $20,i1,SN 'Appro into Assuaged Value Buildings:. 1 Condo SF Condo%Land: Condo%Bldg: Unit Typo: Landscaping$: Pr.Party Type:Commercial $0.00 Quality: Good Mod: 2905 Occupancy: Indust Heavy Manufactuig Condition: CM-Typical Its Eat: 00 P rlmSh 2538 NAAS Adi: 1 Pensnt Coup: 100.00% Idrldual Built As EMS Salt As: Indust Hoary Maadacirin Year Suit 2007 OmnUaoOw Type: S Year limodobd: INAC: Package Unit %limadeled: Glair Raab: Ad)Veer BM: 2007 Roof Cavan: ERa00ms Aga: 3 Bait As SF: 106060 Mi Mein: e of Bags: Tag Lin iIwdti: X e of 95w Tag LagOdwdtl0 X s of Mar t t Ma Weft LF: Spry liltha 46 MH 5ldrtig 1yp. Spddder SF: 106060 Dlmalan Cauchy: WSW Wed esay,July 27,2011 Paget at 10 CBOE_COMM_01i Pag€ WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Accounts:R5250708 PROPERTY PROFILE Pm al th 080725202001 scat masse: rtaon Built As: habit Hoary Mandadu in Yam[brit 2009 Cambrian Type: S TomRemodeed: IWAC: Package UN[ %Remodeled: Inferior Rdsh: Ail Tear Btt: 2009 Roof Corer: Effective Aga: Bust As SF: 128553 Mb Wm: it of Balm: Tag Langdf lWidth: X it of Odium Tag IangthWldlh: X s of Series: t Mh Bidding LF: Moll(eight 46 MH Skirting Type: Settler SF: 128553 Dhmmfer: Capacity: Haigh: Bull As: Indust terry Ms dadurin Tear Built: 2009 Carat clmrlypo: S YeaRemodebd: HI AC: PadaagoUnit %Remodeled: Inferior Fidsh: Ada Yaar Blt: 2009 Roof Corer: Elbe*Age: 1 Su*As SF: 44764 Mh Mahe: s of Bar Tag Isngl AlAddt X s of Skins: Tag langthAVie X s of Morin 1 Mh BldrtMg LF: !Wry Might 29 NH MMaing Wpm Spar Skim SF: 44755 DL _ML: Capacity: SWIM: Butt As: Rmbrnrds-Cafeterias Yam Bent 2099 Condretionlype: S Tea Remodeled: INAC: Package Unit %Remodeled: NMerior Fideh: Ada Year Bt 2009 Roof Cam: Motile Age: 1 Batt As SF: 11978 Mk Mahe: sot Bar Tag Length/Mat X sot Mum Tag L nglVMdlh: X a of Modem 2 Mb Skirting LF: Story leytah 15 MN lidding Type: Spits BF: 11978 DWnfef: Capacity: Sight: W ednasdy,July 27,2011 Page 3 of 10 CBOE_COMM_OL Page WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Aomuh s:85250706 PROPERTY PROFlLE Parcel s:060725202001 last rn saes: lnsees: Bunt As: Indust Homy tiatYain Year Bit: 2007 Construction Type: S Year Smwdeed: IWAC: Padwpa Uri S.Remodeled: Interior Fkdofn: Add Year Sit: 2007 Roof Carer: Efleaw Ago: 3 Bunt As SF: 10040 Yh Make: s of Bags: Tag LenggJWWlh: X s of BMus: Tag UuggYNWlh: X it of Sham 1 Mh Skirting LF: Story Sint: 14 UN Shifting Type: BDdlddsr SF: 10040 Disnster: Capacity: Sint: Bust As: industrial Interior Office Sp Yam Bunt: 2009 aostmotion Type: S Year Smode' J: HMG: Package UM %Remodeled: Interior Finish: Ark Yen Bit: 2009 Roof Carer: Elk.**Age: 1 Bunt As SF: 5950 Mh Make: s of Bars: Tag LarrglYNIWtlr: X s of BMus: Tag lengguWRddt X s of BRores: 1 IAN Skirling LF: filmy Sight 15 MN Skirling Type: Sprinkler BF: 5950 Dreier: Capacity: Sigh: Butt As: Indust Hoary M=sdschain Year Bust: 2007 Construction Type: S Your Romcdeed: MAC: Package Unit %Remodeled: interior Fkdah: A4 Year BM 2007 Roof Carer: EBwtlre Age: 3 Built As SF: 26250 Mh koke: s of Balm Tag Ls ngdVMidth: X s of Bdrms: Tag langtlWldlh: X it of Sins: 1 Mh Skirting LF: Mmy Sint: 33 MN Siting Typo: Sprinkler SF: 26250 DWnster: Capacity: HNC: WaInwday,July 27,2011 Page 4al 10 CBOE_COMM_O1I Pag< WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Amount I:85250708 PROPERTY PROFILE Paul at 080725202001 rag NM Seat: NH Sion Bail At: hdaYid hdarir Ofict Sp War But 2007 Corrinrtion TYPO: S Tow Ranrdaid: INAC: Package Unit %lbModeNd: Nora Fhdd1: A4 Yaw Olt 2007 Roof Coven MaiasAwn 3 Belt As SF: 24628 lb fib: s of Sago: Tag Lang1WWW c X s of Banns: Tag LongahlV dUt X if of Spit: 2 Blh WSW,LF: Slog liiiM: 15 NH Bldrtlrg Type: SPricddar SF: 24628 Blamer: Capacity: Ma Balding onus Bld's: 1 USN Urals Prim RCN Actual Vain Loading Dodos Piled Carte Walls a Floor 2937 $13.19 $37,420.03 $37.420.00 Alpha Good 218250 $2.50 $545,625-09 $545,625.00 Comas Slab(Gad 79290 $4A0 $344,080.00 $344,080.00 Value Devils RCM Cos : $156.81 CosignA4%: o AsIc CC.%: 0 TOW RCik $58,152.371.00 Barka A49k 0 Egon Obs% 0 Phys Dow IL: 0.01 Marlow A4% 0 Oar Caw lk o Phys Dspr$: 581524 Asir A4%: 0 RCIID S $57,570,047-00 WAD Co*YSF $160-6 BYdralF: $0.00 Wednesday,July 27,2011 Pain 5 of 10 CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR AIXaunt 85250708 PROPERTY PROFILE Pantel sc 080125202001 non an one: am sprat Buaang a 2 Condo aF Condo%lam: Cando%BIdg lhdtTyp: Ladewpig$: Propos Typo:Commercial 5000 Cealfs: Good Hbnd: 2805 Cownpncy: edusl Naar Manufactuting Cadalios: CM-Typical Mid at 00 PerirMr. 1484 Ifhid 14: 1 Permit Cam* 10000% Ytliridual Bolt M MIM Brit As: Indust Farr Mandacisin Year Bala 2007 Construction Typo: 3 Year Iinar%id: HVAC: Complete IWAC %IMnmdaNd: Ndedar Fhddn: M%or Bit 2007 Roof Conn Eaaatire Age: 3 Bolt As SF: 22950 nth Mkt s of Bantu Tag Lal9MWNldtk X s of admit: Tag IangWNlidtls X s of gtonis: 1 can BHnting LF: Blom Richt: 25 MN IRMI g Typo: 8pt 139: 22950 tMaaNar: Capadry: HSfl Sit As: *dust Heay Mandachain bar Ha 2009 Comlrvogun Typo: 3 Year finaodaid: 14VAC: Hone %fialadsid: Mann Rah: 1144 Year It 2009 Roof Caw EfiaflnAgo: 1 Belt As SF: 15900 It Mahe: s of Bet Tag Lrg u Midilt X it of Bees: Tag laiti X s of Nodes: 1 Mk M Mlhg LF. Stan Eight: 25 NH Skirting Typo: Sprits,f1F: 15900 UL_L Copecks: MOM: Siang Rota Wednady,July 27,2011 P800 801 d 10 CBOE_COMM_01i Pag. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR A9991an0:196 PROPERTY PROFILE Pawl«080/25202001 Wall IM Mgt: Map= Wus Mans RCN Cos$SF: $149.00 Design AW%: 0 Fun OM%: 0 TO NI RCN: $6,008,206-00 Ealwlar AdM%: 0 Ron Obs%: 0 Pbys Dept%: 0.01 inflict Adj%: 0 OrlirObs% 0 PIP Dap$: 50002 Asian Adj%: 0 ACC t: $6,$A,146&00 RCRLD CouWIF $150.51 U...L118F: $0.00 W 9dlnsdw,July27,2011 Paps 701 10 CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Accamke:R525070e PROPERTY PROFILE Parcel 080725202x01 resit image: trips Building` 3 Cone d% Condo%Land: Condo%Bldg: *hlk Type: f: Property Type:Connrarcd $0.00 array: Good Ibld: 2905 Occupancy: Gag Staler(Qiwd Howe)B Condition: CM-Typical NMI Elk: 00 Perieroor•. 81 led Ad(: 1 Peron*Camp: 100.00% Individual Balk As Dotal Band As: Goff Sailor(Guard House) Yon Bit 2007 Corrprmgon Type: S Year Ranmd±a HMG: Package Grit %Iismdoid: hdada Fbdah: Ad)Year fit: 2007 Roof Coven I]ictlro Ago: 3 Bag*As BF. 271 Rh Mahe: it of Bora Tag Ls glVgldge X it of Bloom: Tag LsnggalWidlle X e of Morin 1 Rh Skirting LF: Slog Bain 11 NH Sating lypt Sprfrdfar 8F: 231 Oi_oor: Coppola: Shit Building Deals Yahm Da RCN CoSSF: $10292 DaaipiAd)%: 0 From Obi%: 0 Toll RCN: 4)2+,849.00 Dada Al%: 0 fdo0 0M%: 0 Pap Dspr%: 0.07 MarirAdj9k 0 OlherOba9k 0 Phyp plat 1739 AmenAd4%: 0 RCIILD$a $23.110-00 RCI1LDCouVMF $100.04 USIfWF: $0.00 Weinesd y,Judy 27.2011 Page 8 of 10 CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Account,:85250708 PROPERTY PROFILE perm t.080725!02001 S0O mu Ogg t: ray ape: Building fi 5 Condo SF Cando%Land: Condo%Bldg: Wit Type lanthemping t: Properly Type: Common' go cm Duality: Average Ield: 2005 Ocarganoy:Comm Shod-&syno d Condign: CM-Typical IMd Fib 00 PerL t; 220 ItS Art 1 Pasant Camp: 100.00% Ydddud Bunt As DMd ma As: Comm Shed-EOupnrrd War Belt: 2000 ConMiucionlype: S WrlinmtYd: INAC: Radiant %Remodeled: Interior Rah: AU Veer BB: 2009 Roof Caen: Bloody,AP: 1 Built As SF: 3000 Ilk helr: s oI Bogor Tag LrpiVMMMh: X it of Minns: Tag LengBYNldlh: X s of Stris: 1 IIh Skirting LF: Story Wight 14 UN SMIRK!Typo: Spnb r SF: 3000 DYnrtor: Camay: Mid* Belding Oepii Bhgs: 5 Undo Ur is Price RCN Achml Vibe SAIL .. i i4 Corn Canopus Steel Pace ge 17336 x.50$407.306.00 $305.174.00 Conroe Slab Ayrage 780D $3.66 $28,704.00 $27454300 Value Drab RCMCaWSF: $20.45 LUMP*4%: 0 Ram Obi%: 0 Total Rat $505.67000 Exterior AUtic 0 Ram Oha9% 0 Ripe Dept%: 0.03 koraAd)%: 0 OBmrObe% 0 I%ys Depr$: 16170 A—r-Adj%: 0 RC11LD$: $490,500 OD BNILD Cc*SF $163.60 YrhalSF: $000 Wednexdm,Judy27,2011 Pap ad 10 CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Pacoima t:S5250706 PROPERTY PROFILE Parr t:060725202001 seat rlsgit: wereo: Belding t: 6 Condo SF Condo%Land:Condo IL Bldg: Unit Type: LardsaspIng Properly Type:Commercial $0.00 OOrily: Average Its: 2005 Occupancy: 3orvice Garage Co-. .-.:li CM-Typpical Ibld st 00 Perfumer: 200 Ifild AE: 1 Potent Comp: 100.00% idridtel But M Detail WE M: Servi0o Garage bar Bulh 2010 Construction Typo: S Year IimgdeYd: NVAC: Rather %Bsmodded: Inferior Fkash: A4 Year Bit 2010 Roof Carer, :]ions Age: 0 Bull M SF: 2400 Mh Mier: s of Bars Tag langlvwldtlt X s of Bdrma: Tag LangtlWldr: x t of Blare* 1 Eh Signing LF: Slay lilght: 23 MN Editing Type: Sprhdde BE: 3200 Dister: Capedn: Hsieh Sulam;Dais Bldg*: 6 theta Urea a Price RCN Adel Vireo Storage 800 $18.02 $14417.57 my$�++14417.57 AVID, ,iceJ.r CI: Corn Canopies Steel Nerage 1200 X23-50 $26,200.00 $28,200.00 Cantata Slab Good 1200 $4.40 $5,280.00 $6,280.00 Value OEMs RCNCautIBF: $56.85 DeilyiA4%: o F1aro Ohs%: 0 Tool RCN: $194,066.00 EValor Ada%: 0 Seal Obi 9lc 0 Res Der%; 0 Serial AE 0 Other Ole ilk 0 Phya Mel$: 0 AS*, 0 ROILS k $104,066.00 MILD CaSBF Sass MaksVSF: $0.00 W edeasdy,Judy 27,2011 Page 1 O d 10 CBOE_COMM_01' Page Brighton Blades Plant Cost Profile WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Amount*:R5779001 PROPERTY PROFILE pans 6:147129201001 Merest Ma Sres: Lei App*an 2011 La :71.073 it of BldP:4 Creels Olt 01(1112010 Tint ebb 4297 Mops: LEA:MGRS Act.Oro 20100111 Assign Tea WJM Mills:WSJ Awl Typo:Industrial flct.Olt New Gros y1:0 Last Uplifted:6/W2011 Quota Nssls mid Address Propstlp Adana: VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC at 1500 E CROWN PRINCE BLVD B Ciq: BRIGHTON 11140 EASTMAN PARK 0RME WINDSOR CO 00650 eadiaw Vetas Rados Amara Inc. Bdn far Loyal thoorip0on Pr LI 11i 1 YE*TAS BLADES I n4CE11A CAMPUS Ri M TINT NWT LYING 1Q Or SEC al NOSYoa IY1u YESWAS BLADES RAMIE CAMPUS SUB RI I Block Lot Tract Sea Tows* Rnys 1 1 29 01 06 Land VANS=Be Abet Bquane LMM*of IS Volk Acta A tarot Asrsssd lad Tips Ag Cods Cods Fat Mew Of lists Pa Unit Vdaa Moat Vdrm Industrial 3115 4,896.144 Square Fop 4096144 WOO $,792,2A8.00 0.29 :2,899,760 Lad Bodptsi: Mall 44 09,79y,9106 9 IT110 Thorley,July 21,2011 Pop 1 019 CBOE_COMM_O1( Page WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Acton s:176778001 PROPERTY PROFILE Poi al s:147129201001 ism S aarasaa: rrapo: Widow Vallslion Bang A6st Asanl xsmand BMus Prom,Type Cob Occupancy Actual Value Posnt Vale. 1 COnmaCYS 3216 333-Indust Heavy Mandechri g $78,640258 029 $22,806,675 2 Conmsoial 3215 391-3Yxage-Material $247,205 0.29 $71,689 3 Con necii 3215 334-Indust Lg t Manufacturing 5402,618 029 5116,759 4 Co m arcid 3216 1129-Parking Lot'Code $253,836 029 $73,613 r prosom.Ksarrlotal: $70.r+49t8 Vann Told Prspo ly VS. Lr90.a75An 575AWAn 'Apprainde Assessed Value Building a: 1 Condo BF Condo%land: Condo%Bldg: Unit Typt landscaping$: Ron Typo: ConanacS $0-00 adM: Good Iblyd: 4003 Occupancy: Indust Healy Manufacturing —lie: CM-Twical Maki En: 00 Pert Ton 10575 Ibld Ado: I Pert Carp:90-00% Individual Bulk As Detail Ball As: Indust Hoary Manufacturin Year Bair~ 2009 C011 01111001111*im Wpm S Tsar Iksrrrodaad: HMAC: Complete HPYAC %lierod.id: irtimFkdsh: M Yaw Olt 2009 Roof Cara: E6alio Aga: Brit As SF: 5280 la l as: •of Bats Tag Lmng ltaldgc X s of Bens Tag Langthrillidge X s of Moral: I al Biding LF- Blay Haight: 15 NM fBdiM,Type: gp Pride BF: 5280 Dio Oc: Masafq: Mehl: Tlandy,Jdy 21,2011 Page 2 of 9 CBOE_COMM_01 Peg WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Poona ft:Reneoot PROPERTY PROFILE paaei a:147120201001 remit roans: 1101 Inn Oa As: Indust Hoary M.utedu in Tsar ant 2000 Ca.hr.don Typo: s rim Remodeled: HVAC: PadcageUrit %Ramadand: hyador FT1ieh: #4 Tsar Bh: MOO Roof Cane. Eamon,Aga: 1 Bath As aF: ne94 Mh Wks: a of flat t Tag tangrAllk ut X I of Bdms: Tag lmgSJNidlh: X It of Sane: 1 IAA Sldrano LF: aloof SVC 90 MH BMrting Typo: Sprhddsr BE: saea LH.r.lor. Cepblf: Height: SO As: Office Hddrrg Tsar Breit: 2000 CoahsolonTips: S TearFnrrsdend: FNAC: PadcageUnit %Remodeled: Mlorior RSA: #4 Tsar Blt: 2000 Roof Conn [5.4.Age: t t an SF: erne Flh Wha: s of Bat: Tag IaglWNldth: X it of Bdin: Tag Lun VMfdge X a of Mont 2 Mh Slating LF: aloof HAMS 15 MH Sang Type: aprhdder SF: 35en Dnrrrslar: Capoehy: Hege: an As: hided Hoary Monacan' Yea Brat: 2000 Conahao -.Type: S TsarRI:m aid: WV AC: Complete HVAC %Remodeled: hrWfor Fhdeh: Ad)Tsar By: 2000 RoofCoear: Eases S at As SF: flan Rh Wks: a of Bears: Tag LaopgWMidyt X s of Bdrns: Tag LergplWidat X s of Slane: 1 MA Skirting LF: glop Malt 2T NH adrift Typo. farhiler SF: 11803 BtaesLa Crpadtr Hulgln: 'annoy,Jug 21.2011 Pege s of 0 C0OE_COMM_0 Pe[ WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Accounts:R6779001 Parcel PROFILE psi x.147129201001 sae am sat: ors some: Bit As; Mule LAM MnulackrM Tsar Ba 2009 arstlr_Non lyre: S Year Remodeled: HVAC: None X Remodeled: Wertor Mob: A4 Year Ilk: 2009 Roof Caner: Effective Aga: 1 Bait M SF: 1359 Mh Mls: I of Sages Tag Length/Width: X it of Bdres: Tag LenglliWMlh: X s of Moris: 1 Mh Sighing LF: Slery Wife 29 MH Skirting Type: Spar SF: 1359 BiensLr: apec*y: Hide: Bait As: Indust Horny Mnlacthn Year Bult: 2010 Construction?rpm S TsarRemaderd: FNAC: Space Hash %Remodeled: keener Rnids A4 Tier Bh: 2010 Roof Cony: Effete*Age: 0 Bait M SF: 13329 Rh Mats: s of Balls: Tag Larggkwldts X s of Bairns: Tag I. nplhir dlh: X s of Stones: 1 Mh Skirting IS: BMW WSW 31 NH Skirting Type: Spit SF: 19329 Manias Meader HNBh1: Bait As: Indust Hoary kin facuin Year Bad(: 2010 an(nrotlonlype: S Year Remodeled: WAC: Package Unit %Remodeled: keens Rolls *4 Veer Mt: 2010 Roof Caarer: Biotin Age: 0 Bit As SF: 35052 Rh Mab: s of Balks Tag LungBYNldth: X s of Balms: Tag Lu gBYMldlh: X s of SWIM: 1 fah Skiing LF: Serf Wight: 44 MH Skiing 1W911: Sprite;SF: 35052 Blerrrles apecky: Height: Thursday,July 21,2011 Pape 4 re 9 CBOE COMM_01 Page WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Account•:R9778001 PROPERTY PROFILE Pares L 147129201001 roars: MX a.S#: wain Brit As: Indust Harry Mwdacthn Ter Bulk 2010 amtruagon lye S Tear Hamoaad: HTAC: Package Unit %Rmmoaled: hsitoi RMa6: An Tar BA: 2010 Roof Coven Elbe, 6 Brits 8F: 1847 Oh labia: s of Baps Tag LunshAndtit X s of Berns: Tag LanglVMBdth: X •of Mores: 1 IAA Skirting IF; Nom fight: 23 MH Sitting Type: Spri:in 8F: 1847 Dimmest: apolry: Sat Skit As: Indust Flaary Manufackain Yea BS: 2009 Construction Type: S Tit Dampened: IWAC: Package Unit %Hanraafed: kenos Meh: Adl Year Mt 2009 Roof Ca Heats,Age 1 OUR M BF: 259376 Ilk Yee: •of Bags: Tag Leng JNWlh: X •of Berns: Tag LrrgBYNtddu X s of Shim 1 VA finning LF: Borg Haight: 49 OH Skirting Type: Bprhkker SF: 259376 OfameLi; apaky: MOM: Bull As: Must Harry Msadackain Yea Bolt 2011 Compaction Type: S Teat Ibmodeed: WAC: Package Unit %Reamals 1: Mimdr Minh: A4 Year Bt 2011 Roof Cover. Elba**Age: 0 Brit As SF: 66102 Mk flake: s of Batts: Tag lanBBdgM1dlh: X s of 8drms: Tag LwrgBVNldth: X t of Sorbs: 1 Ilk Siding LF: Story Haight: 40 BIN Skirling Type: BF: 66102 Demmer: Capacity: Height: Building Dnein Thursday,Amy 21,2011 Page 5 of 9 CBOE_COMM_Oti Pagw WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Aoo _ . 85778001 PROPERTY PROFILE Pama14147129201001 Lag NI ant: aw apav: Edge: I Lilt (its Pm. RCN Adel Value Mier Quayle Slob Amapa 20000 $3-8 $TJA00.00 $73,600.00 ASS Amigo 200000 $225 $450,000.00 $450,000.00 VS..'S RCNCoWlIF: $171-42 DesignAdf%: 0 'Rine Ohs%: 0 Total RCP& $70.640758.00 Ealwlar Ace%: 0 EOsaOMIra 0 PINE Dior%: 0 htarlor All 9k 0 Orlin 0W% 0 PkIa DUN k 0 Amour Ad4%: 0 RCkED$: $78,640,258-00 RCNLDCce1F $157.32 YwkWBF: $0.00 Thursday,J0V 21.2011 P19060(9 CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Account I:85778001 PROPERTY PROFILE paad It 147122201001 malt m1 ant: aUapa Building It 2 Condo BF Condo%Land: Condo%BYO: Unit Typo: Tan dmopig$: Priam TIPM:Commwcii woo Mar Good Mid: 4003 Oowrpomq: Singe-Ynbril Candldor: QA-Typical Ibid Eat OD MSS 230 1664 A4: 1 Pawn Comp: 100.00% 6dbYud US As Dald BoilAa: Storage Warehouse Tomtit 2009 Connotion Typo: S Tsar FYnmdabd: FNAC: Rodent %FbmadNad: Mistier RSA: Ai Tow It 2009 Fbof Ca Mee 1 Bait An SF: 3511 iM Mat II of Bet Tag Langibledilt X d of Bdrns: Tag Langgfeldlit X it of Bprba: 1 Uh Sidigng LF. Spry Sit 27 NH Building Typo: Bpfkild r BF: 3511 0irnmlrr•. Capecily: MOO: Building Claws Ta6a Date RCMCoagBF: $67.10 DoaipsAdi%: 0 Fuse Oha%: 0 Told RC* $240,70200 ExNrbr AN%: 0 Eoon 06a%c 0 PhS Door%: 0.01 interior AdM% 0 Wier Obeli: 0 MP'Da r$: 2407 AmaiMr Adj%: 0 BCILD It $247,205.00 RCNLD CooVBF $70.41 ibrhapOF: $0.00 Thnndy,July 21.2011 Page 7 of 0 CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR AOComd a:86779001 PROPERTY PROFILE Pawl s:147129201001 Wert swag*: am9pea: Buildings•. 3 Condo BF Condo RDLand: Condo%Bldg: Unit 1W. Landscaping$: Papaw T . Connacht $0.00 Quality: Good ISM: 4903 Occupancy: Indust Lott thnulacturing Condition: CM-TYPcd Ned Ezt: 00 Pahaalm 290 NSW A4: Swam Camp: 100.00% Ydrldud Built M Daps Brit As: Indust Lght Maaladurkg yaw Bust 2010 Caruafgon1yP. S TearRomodsid: HOAC: Space Heater %Romodoid: Maier Ankh: A4 yaw EMI: 2010 Road Cara: Hann Ago: o Bait SF. 3300 MP Yaks: s of Be: Tag LanglWwldlk X s of Banns: Tag LanpgYNWDt X s of Soria: 1 Yk Skirting LF: Spry fight 13 MN Skirting Typo: Spniddw BF: DWnoton CaPacill: Sled: Belding Daps Bldg s: 3 Unite Units Price RCN Actual vino n ComCampis Skid Good 7100 $30-00:213,00000 $213,000.00 Value Outab RCNCoaVSF: $67.46 MAPRdi%: 0 Fun Ott%: 0 Tout RCM $402,61&00 Ester*4%: 0 Eon Ott% 0 Shp Dopr%: 0 Marls*4% 0 Chin %e 0 Phya Malt 0 Amapw A4%: 0 gCKD* $402,61&00 RGS.DCouVBF $12201 W1bliSF: $&00 Tandgr,Jay 21.2011 Page a of a CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Account S: PROPERTY PROFILE p 1471292010131 LACSx MN SR It: MI Spa Building s: 4 Cando BF Condo%laid: Condo%Bldg: thaw flaring* Props"Type: Commercial Soso OeYlkr: 1614: 4903 Occupancy: Panic Lot'Code Cann: I6M Eat 00 Perrefer. Mid kg: 1 Percent Carp:100.00% LsdUfder Belli As OOPS But As: Paikig lot tede Yon Bub: 2010 Colslretin Type. Year Rerrrodobd: If/AC: None %itsmodoled: Inferior Robb AM Tar Bib Hoof Cain EBsake Aga: 0 Brit As SF: 1 1111 igeko: s of Bob: Tag LergglWidth: X s of Bins: Tag LerglWWWlh: X s of Slat 1 L1h Sidrlkg LF: SIM light 8 NH*Ming Type: SO W&SF: Oran Cassels:: *SW Belding Obis Bldg s: 4 Urils Urals Price RCN Actual Vales Ragod Spur e0OLF. 2600 $97.69 $259.698.00 $251b9B00 Vale Omali R N CoNISF: $0.00 Makin Adf%: 0 Fin Obs%: 0 Told RC* $25383800 EMsrkr*di%: 0 Earn Oka* 0 Plus Deb* 0 krlerierAdj* 0 Other Obs% 0 qrp Oopr$: 0 Awaits Adl%: 0 POLO* 1253,836.00 RCIILD CauYBF $263.638.00 NsdsVSF: $0.00 Tlendas Jody 21.2011 Page 9 of 9 CBOE_COMM_01 Pag Brighton Nacelle Plant Cost Profile WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Moon R5778002 PROPERTY PROFILE pomp 147129301002 Sol s: NI Not ax awn: Apps flan 2011 Sig:85.9W PcI Blew3 CnsN Ore 0111112010 Tax Oat 4298 W p s: LEA:BRGTO4 Ac*.QC 20100111 Assign To WJM Miele:WJM Arcs Type:Industrial bncllnnOm NwCrosr/n:0 Loot IIpdNad:skean 1 Oases Nome and Address: PraporW Address: VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC Street 1500 E CROWN PRINCE BLVD N City: BRIGHTON 11140 EASTMAN PARK ORME WINDSOR CO 90550 Burn Vats Scales America Inc. Pelee tlsesrnq Levi Ossarpllon Pr LI Wr 1 YESTAS BLADES a racEUA WINS r8 SI TN5T Fr LYNGS2 OF SEC 29 aeslaar Naas YESTAS SLAMS NM.El1E CAAIPUS SOB rC I Hock Lot Tract Sareisn Township Range 1 1 29 01 58 lad 11abotion tiuesesrr Abet Pqura Unit of r— — Vale AlWI Ann Mesesd Led Type Ag Code Cads Feet an OI WS Per link Velum Peron Wee lediaY®1 3115 2,065,086 Square Feet 2065065 $200 $5,730,170.00 028 $1,551,750 Lard Subtotal: 21111005 16,730,770.00 $1.01.750 Thursday,Ju r 21,2011 Page 1 de CBOE_COMM_01 Pag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR 94X011111 9:88778002 PROPERTY PROFILE paw s:147129301002 Ian wage: wapra: Bulldogs Tolman San Abp Aaaa t Aassaaad Bldg* PrawbType Coda Occupancy Aral Yaks Percent Vahs 1 Commercial 3215 333-kldud 119097 Malaladurilg $59,930,909 0.29 $17,090,790 2 Conara0il 3216 183-Got Slater(Guard House)Boaris $61,451 029 $17,822 3 Cannlacal 3215 1129-Parking Lot'Code $195,092 029 $30,688 Maroaammta6rhloaN: $50,121,445 $17.117,210 Taal Panay Talus $91,951$15 $15,909,$99 *Appraisals Assessed Value Building a 1 Condo SF Condo%Land:Condo%BMg: Ikdt lyps: Landaaptng$: Pram,Type Comnacid $0.00 Good 1614: 4903 Oowpaner trldiel Haag Maalac4ni g Caa59an: CM-TYNcd 161d 6q: 00 Parader: Ithd Ad): Ppnt Comp: 100.00% IrlirMual Bu*As DNS Brdlt As: Indust Henry Mwlaciain Ter Mb 2009 Construction Typo: S Tear Rasodela HIIAC: Package UM %R►rodlak Interior Rdah: AN Tasr Olt 2009 Roof Cesar: tib*tlas Alp: 1 Bait As SF: 9622 a Malt s of Balm Tag la.eiadtlt: X s of Stns: Tag langS' ieh: X 1r of Maras: 1 Ma Mang LF: Spry HYfpin: 13 IBI Sldtky Type: Sn/iddar SF: 5779 Daman Carden He: ThaWy,Jay 21,2011 Page 2 of e CBOE_COMM_01 Peg WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE 775Q Pann1 k 147129301002 tat am sees: wawa As: Must Hoag Man :turn Tea IMP 2009 ConS $on lyps: S War Rarssdlad: HVAC: Package Una %Ransdalad: bdadr Malt M Tar Mt 2009 Roof Conn Elbayas Aga: 1 MO As SF: 222054 We line s of Bags: Tag Lsny/JWIdYS X sofOdins: TagLmg*1WWgt X s of Snit 1 Yb Skirting LF: Way lbigllt 52 FAH IBlrting Typs: B.W.SF: 222054 DSc Capacity: Ma: Wit As: Olin Bddalp Yost Bit 2009 Conflation 1yps: S War Ramodaad: MIAC: Pad:ape Unit %Ibmadlad: Inman Rain: Al Tsar Bt: 2009 Roof Cann ElaotaaAP: 1 Ballt As SF: 35500 Mb Mats: If of Omit Tag La gNWId t X of admit TaglaglVWidtlt X s of Sons: 2 Mb Salni g LF: Btar9lbigt 15 WI Mining Typo: Bpbdder SF: 35500 Dismatan Capacity: Matt Brit As: Indust Ley Mradacisin Tow Bolt 2009 Cor nic*n1yps: S Tar fismod•ad: WAC: Raciest %Ramodalad: bdodr Hanish: Ad Tar Btt 2009 Roof Cann: OaatauAga: 1 Oe As SF: 4755 Yh SS: ft of fads: Tag LangtMId O X It of Bdrns: Tag Langgfifidgt X s of glris: 1 Mb Ming LF Saty Haight 31 MH Bi4irg 1yp: Spann"SF: 4755 DaaNMF. Capacity: faldM: Tlsndy,Jey 21.2011 Page 3 d CBOE_COMM_O Pay WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Amoord•:H6778002 PROPERTY PROFILE pans it 147128301062 uork NM gar NH Sam Bolt As; Indust Lght ManutocItri g Tow Ile 2009 Crstnrodon Typo: S Year IYrod•lod: HMG: Nono %Mrod•lod: MUSK Sufi: M Your U t 2009 Root Corr: FJ oothroAgo: 1 Re As SF: 993 Mb—.. it of BSc Tai LongthAVIdtk X it of Udnns: Tog La gMJwIdth: X I of Soria: 1 Igh Slitting IS: Sirf Wight: 24 tiH RldrIng Typo: Spri Ode SF: 993 INNIS Gawky: LYlfl: BuldIng DNS Bldg*: t USN Unit Prime RCN Actual Vain Asp..Amigo 120500 $2251 $271.12500 $211.125.00 Commis Slab Average 12060 $3.68 $µ,344.00 $44,344.00 Volrm DmWa RCNCn*RF: $21137 Onion Ad,%: 0 Roo Oho%: 0 Top(RCM $39,930,309.00 FaMdr Adl%: o Eton as%: 6 Plop Door%: o MINS AdI lk o Other Ohm lk 0 Ploys Door$: o AnrS wAd4%: 0 RCLLD ge $59,930.309-00 RCNLD CoinnF $21514 Mika: $0.00 ilnady.July 21.2011 Page 4 0l 8 CBOE_COMM_O Pa: WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Accounts:n6n8002 PROPERTY PROFILE P k 147126301002 laaaR as Nqs: 991 km: Building s: 2 Condo BF Cando%Land: Cando%Wdg: unit Typo: Landscaping$: Pmp fl Tlpe:amnncih Woo a0 % Good PBS: 4603 Oceans Gag Stater(Guard House)8 Delon CM-Typical 161d at oo Peen e6 Itbld Ad): 1 Pashl Cosa 100.00% Mldkidusl Bit As BMW Bit As: God Sitter(Guard Hale) Ter*Bulk 2010 OmulrleUonlypa: D YostFinnodeid: NYAC: Package Unit %rY.od.rd: MINI*Finish: A4 Year B@ 2010 Hoof Conn FJiotlin 0 WSW SF: 453 Si FHMo: s of Bagu: Tag LangSlWd* X s of Bdnna: Tag LrhggYlMdtc X s of BLoris: 1 Las Skirling LF: glory light: 16 MN Mating Ws: SpMdder SF: 453 Ohaisi : aP 9r: MOW Biding OWNS Talon OafnBs RCN Cmt'LL: $130.61 DNa4n Ad)%: 0 Fine Ohs%: 0 TOW RCM 361,464.00 EdarlorM%: 0 km 0 Eby"Dior 0 InarirAd)% 0 OgarOber%e 0 PIS Bon 0 Amateur AdM%: 0 MCLLO$: $61.454.00 ROILS Costar $135.85 1191 119141F: 30.00 lhady.Juy 21.2011 Page s of e CBOE_COMM_01 Fag WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Meoadr:R6778002 PROPERTY PROFILE paaalr:147129301002 lays wags: on mass BuYdig la 3 Cando SF Condo%Lad: Cando%Bldg: Unit Type IatlempYq$: Popatd Type: Conflated $0.00 Nr: SW: 4003 Ooalpmor: Pig Int'Code Condion: Mid Ext. 00 Pa6&Mr I61d Psi: 1 Patin'Canon 100.00% htlhidud OWN M DNll Bat At Palaig Lot*Code TsarBoit 2010 CamgstlonType: bar flo odelod: If/AC: None %RealodeW: kelodor gdeh: kg Veer BM: Roof COM: Biggs Ago: o Bolt M SF: 1 Nh Mahe: s of lidlts Tag LenggiWidlh: X s of Boh nc Tag Lungderill h X re of Sprig: I Mh Skirting LF: Slog Neighl: a IAN Skirting Type: Spiked&SF: Dimalon. Building OHMS Bldg r: 3 Unds inns Pre RCN Actual Value AS O* Rained Spur rotLF. 1400 $07.69$136, 00 $136.892.00 Talus Deels RCN Co* : $0.00 Oman W%: o Flo Ohs%: 0 Total RCN: $136,66200 Exterior*4%: o ken Ohs%: 0 Php Dept%: 0 Minor M% o OBorOhs%: 0 Phya Deer$: 0 Amer Add%: 0 gags* $136,66200 RCIILD CoMISF $136.992.00 McAWSF: $0.00 Thursday,,Maly 21.2011 Page 6 of 9 CBOE_COMM_0' Pat • • • NOTICE OF DETERMINATION • • Christopher M. Woodruff Date of Notice: 6/22/2011 Weld County Assessor : -.-? Telephone: (970) 353-3845 or (720) 652-4255 • 1400 N 17th Ave Fax: (970) 304-6433 • Greeley, CO 80631 ( uAil: 2t-mail: appeals@co.weld.co.us www.co.weld.co.us Office Hours: 8:00 AM 5:00 PM • R. lr t e t t + t ' u A 10:444 S t flAlo 1` ,''; . 0 *Rai tt , • $111" i :F;l ryciut�. ,+fin i 4k 7);177; e '4:1'Os IKI'PM r 'ii,.1i `1.''FIYspk 4 ttAf i ,;;5149. • R6778002 2011 4296 PT L1 BLK 1 VESTAS BLADES & NACELLA • 41 CAMPUS FG #1 THAT PT LYING S2 OF SEC 29 II VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC 11140 EASTMAN PARK DRIVE 1500 E CROWN PRINCE BLVD N, • { BRIGHTON • '>I�', WINDSOR,CO 80550 • Itii s0 • 3O -0 J NI • k 4'a M�'. I i �1fi aW .. k t1 lit olAss o ' VALUATION ^a'" " 1 t ,i, t±:rid. "�,. ,t { r , p,l l%id li T i �t't s f,12 a • ' ` to iw t , to , r , a I v, v,� 1ti 64 4' k . ,,ti�Mt ,l(,H ii ri%, ,tt ttRlr. j 1t ' °' 400,} txeP� �i pl,t 1 �,l 't4 ,t d �5 A9 E. I r{,�, i �,d • i i, �; !d}, ni,,fie . ,` 1'�`ikr ida ':J�L+, 4�nA iM""",,,,p ,:�. '4rt, yrVtkir tt : • INDUSTRIAL 64,858,615 64,858,615 • • • • • t . '4iltOT"A ri.lv= $64,858,615 $64,858,615 • The Assessor has carefully studied all available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest. The Assessor's determination of value after review is based • on the following: • CM06- The assessor's staff has requested information which is pertinent and critical to proper • evaluation of your property's value. Because we have not received this information, we have no choice but to deny any adjustments. • If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, you have the right to appeal to the County • Board of Equalization for further consideration, § 39-8-106(1)(a), C.R.S. • The deadline for filing real property appeals is July 15. • The deadline for filing personal property appeals is July 20. • The Assessor establishes property values. The local taxing authorities (county, school district, • city, fire protection, and other special districts) set mill levies. The mill levy requested by each taxing authority is based on a projected budget and the property tax revenue required to • adequately fund the services it provides to its taxpayers. The local taxing authorities hold budget hearings in the fall. If you are concerned about mill levies, we recommend that you • attend these budget hearings. Please refer to last year's tax bill or ask your Assessor for a • listing of the local taxing authorities. • Please refer to the reverse side of this notice for additional information. • RONALD K MARTINDALE • 16075 COLEMAN AVE FORT LUPTON CO 80621 • 2011-1778 • • 0 • • • • i'' ,i nr t t� + N; L [ , ,i .�dif� �'Ys„�G�m it,„br�"u7�+ „ ,'�N�,ixPi..'.aF`<aAPd,'E'�5:�i�R�.F!�"DUR�Cg5i �Mi�N b.,.:U v., , ,�, 8, �h i ,,. • County Board of Equalization Hearings will be held from July 1 through August 5 • at 91510`h Street, Greeley, CO • To appeal the Assessor's decision, complete the Petition to the County Board of Equalization shown below, and mail or deliver a copy of both sides of this form to: • Weld County Board of Equalization • 915 10'h Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 • Telephone (970) 356-4000 Ext, 4225 To preserve your appeal rights, your Petition to the County Board of Equalization must be • postmarked or delivered on or before July 15 for real property and on or before July 20 for • personal property — after such date, your right to appeal is lost. You may be required to prove that you filed a timely appeal; therefore, we recommend that all correspondence be mailed with • proof of mailing. • You will be notified of the date and time scheduled for your hearing. The County Board of Equalization must mail a written decision to you within five business days following the date of • the decision. The County Board of Equalization must conclude hearings and render decisions by August 5, § 39-8-107(2), C.R.S. If you do not receive a decision from the County Board of • Equalization and you wish to continue your appeal, you must file an appeal with the Board of • Assessment Appeals by September 12, § 39-2-125(1)(e), C.R.S. If you are dissatisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision and you wish to continue • your appeal, you must appeal within 30 days of the date of the County Board's written decision • to ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals District Court • 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 9th Avenue and 9th Street Denver, CO 80203 P.O. Box C • (303) 866-5880 Greeley, Colorado 80632 • www.dola.colorado.00v/baa (970) 356-4000 Ext. 4520 • Binding Arbitration • For a list of arbitrators, contact the County Commissioners at the address listed for the County Board of Equalization. • If the date for filing any report, schedule, claim, tax return, statement, remittance, or other • document falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it shall be deemed to have been timely filed if filed on the next business day, § 39-1-120(3), C.R.S. • r3i)I«i( '5 )MI' 1,i"'upETIVO TO,QOUNT1ffBQARD'OF EQUALITATIQN. , .'; ;Ih • What is your estimate of the property's value as of June 30,2010? (Your opinion of value in terms of • a specific dollar amount is required for real property ursuant to § 39-8-106(1.5), C.R.S.) $ 2 4 , nor-,, Ots, G • What is the basis for your estimate of value or your reason for requesting a review? (Please attach • additional sheets as necessary and any supporting documentation, i.e., comparable sales, rent roll, original installed cost, appraisal, etc.) • POR (c I 5 dt= Cc kL NL. R to. - Vicod- • PI_aras r S ( r I77F1(, f1/ 1) • p qq • If .; � ;`fin lOg�ky'1)Y .�x ,Iiiili ''d}'t y,'1�'ATT4,STATION t!. ti ��r i W lli'(Irr 3.7 ii vt Ali s l4s :ol,:J; ,I • I, the undersigne owner r agent' of the property identified above, affirm that the statements contained herein an attac ents hereto are true and complete. • ID Signat re Telephone Number Date • • • • ' Attach letter of authorization signed by property owner. • • • • • • 16220 N Scottsdale Road Ryan,, • Suite 50 ® Sco 6 650,Arizona 85254 • Innovative Solutions Main 602.955.1792 to Taxing Problems. • Fax 602.955.4892 • www.ryan.com • • Christopher M. Woodruff Certified Mail 71791000164910469175 • Weld County Assessor's Office • 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 • • Re: Objection to and Protest of Assessor's Actual Value.Per § 39-5-122(2) C.R.S. • 2011 Real Property Notice of Valuation Vestas Blades America, Inc. • Parcel Schedule Numbers: R6778001 and R6778002 • • Dear Mr. Woodruff: • This letter is our written objection and protest of the 2011 Real Property Valuation for Vestas • Blades America, Inc. Please be advised that Ryan, LLC is the duly authorized agent for the • taxpayer in this matter (see enclosed Statement of Agency) and we request that all correspondence and/or telephone communication be directed to: • • Vestas Blades America, Inc. • do Ryan, LLC 16220 N Scottsdale Road • Suite 650 • Scottsdale, AZ 85254 • 602.955.1792 • The property is located at 1500 E Crown Prince Blvd. B &N, Brighton, CO. The summary • below quantifies the amount of the objection. • Parcel Schedule No. Assessor's Actual Value Taxpayer's Requested Value • R6778001 $89,336,207 $50,000,000 • R6778002 $64,858,615 $27,000,000 , • The basis for our objection and protest is that the proposed 2011 Actual Value greatly overstates 4111 the property's market value. Our analysis of market sales for large, heavy industrial facilities • indicates a much lower value is applicable. • We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the valuation of this property with the Weld • County appraisal staff at your earliest convenience. At this time, we would be happy to share the • data and analysis used to support the Taxpayer's Requested Value above. • • • • • • • • • • • Mr. Woodruff • May 26, 2011 • Pg. 2 • • Thank you for our c sideration, • • M Lo us Helen Crown Principal Manager • • • Enclosures: Statement of Agency • AR • • cc: Matthew Stanek • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • - Information in Support of Petitions to the Weld County Board of Equalization,Colorado Notices of Determination of the Weld County Assessor,Dated June 22,2011 • Vestas Blades America,Inc., 11140 Eastman Park Dr,Windsor, Colorado • Vestas Blades America,Inc., 1500 E. Crown Prince Blvd B and N,Brighton Colorado Parcel Schedule Numbers: R5250708,R6778001,and R6778002 • 2011 Tax Year Real Property • • The Vestas facilities in Weld County, Colorado, are newly constructed. Because the 2011 tax year value • notices represent the first opportunity to review and discuss the property in its fully-complete condition, • Taxpayer wishes to ensure all factors affecting value have been considered. The information submitted • within this package is intended to convey the foundation for our request in support of Taxpayer's Petition to the County Board of Equalization. • • SUMMARY OF 2011 VALUATIONS • The table below summarizes the values as assessed by Weld County and requested by Vestas. • • Facility Weld County Weld County Vestas Requested Requested Value Value/SF Value Value/SF • • Windsor $81,888,216 $205.71 $40,000,000 $100.48 - Brighton Blades $89,336,207 $176.311 $50,000,000 $98.68 • Brighton Nacelles $64,858,615 $236.78 $27,000,000 $98.57 • • • The Actual Values placed on the roll for 2011 were set by using a reproduction cost method from • Marshall& Swift. The cost model used pricing for Class S Industrial Heavy Manufacturing for the major • building structures. The base unit prices were adjusted for local multipliers and story height. From the total derived cost only very minimal physical depreciation was taken (the buildings are new) and no loss • in value was attributed to functional or economic obsolescence. = The taxpayer's requested value stated on the protest is based on market-based studies showing an upper- end selling price level of only $100 per SF for large heavy industrial properties. The requested values • were rounded to the nearest $1 million so that the requested value per SF is slightly above or below the • $100 per SF benchmark. • • • • 1 The Assessor's Profile for the Brighton Blades facility shows a "90%completion status"which partially • explains the lower indicated unit value per SF. Adjusting the building component to 100%would yield an • indicated value of approximately$192 per SF. • Vestas Blades and Nacelles—Weld County,Colorado • July 13,2011 • Page 12 • • • • • • TAXPAYER'S CENTRAL POSITION • Our main objection to the valuation method employed by Weld County is that the properties would not • achieve a selling price in the market approaching their indicated reproduction costs. Despite the high cost • of construction, market data shows that heavy industrial properties do not sell at levels equal to • construction cost. Other forms of real estate such as multi-tenant flex buildings, warehouses, office • buildings, and retail complexes are specifically built with price appreciation in mind as real estate investments. With such properties, investors could reasonably expect to achieve a return on their • investment that is greater than their costs. But for a heavy industrial, manufacturing property, the real • estate is functional to the owner's production process and there is no expectation for the property value to • appreciate. • In fact it is well understood that the specialized design and use of a facility, while adding costs, would not • translate into additional market value. Such properties are referred to as "limited market properties". • They have limited market appeal because the pool of potential buyers is small. Since value is a function 41111 of demand, a small pool of potential buyers (small demand) leads to an immediate loss in value for even a newly constructed heavy manufacturing plant. In The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition (Appraisal • Institute, 2008),the functional utility of manufacturing plants is addressed as follows: • o Buildings used for industries using bulky materials have specialized equipment and building designs, so they have few potential users. • • o The facilities for some industries may not contribute as much as they cost to construct. • Conversely, light manufacturing and warehouse properties have much broader market appeal. Market • participants and investors will concentrate investment dollars in properties with broad market appeal. • Reliance on the cost approach is fine for valuing heavy industrial properties, but there must be a market • test applied as a test of reasonableness. The best market test is a review of actual sales of other industrial • properties on both a local and national basis. Indeed Colorado state law requires appropriate • consideration of all three approaches to value. A lack of sales within the county is not sufficient reason to • ignore the sales comparison approach. It is important to consider sales activity on a statewide and nationwide basis for large,heavy industrial properties. • • In the Colorado Arlberg Club case2, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that"the reasonable future use • of real property is an element of its fair market value under its technical definition as well as its common law interpretation in Colorado and elsewhere." The Supreme Court cited the following from the • American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: In the market, the current value of a property is not based on historical prices or cost of creation; it is based on what market participants perceive to be the future benefits of acquisition.; • • • 2 Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado et al.v.Colorado Arlberg Club¶200-280. Supreme Court of Colorado,No. 86SC175,86SC175,762 P.2d 146,September 19, 1988. • s American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers,supra, at 21;see also Comment,supra, 124 U.Pa. L. Rev. at 1431- 32(comparable sales method to determining market value involves"taking into consideration all uses to which the • property is adapted and might be applied")(footnote omitted and emphasis added). • Vestas Blades and Nacelles —Weld County,Colorado • July 13,2011 • Page 13 • • • • • Overturning the decision of the Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court • concluded "that reasonable future use is relevant to a property's current market value for tax assessment • purposes." Thus any potential industrial use of the Vestas facilities may be considered and actual construction cost is not a basis for determining value. • • Additionally, the cost approach is particularly weak for newly constructed properties in a down market. • hi the recent two-year cycle from the 2009 reappraisal to the 2011 reappraisal, Weld County Assessor, Christopher Woodruff, reported an overall 30-35% decline in values for commercial property. A sales • survey for the same period shows a decline in industrial property values as follows: • • • Industrial Selling Price Per SF • June 2008 to June 2010 • $75 I $70 $65 $so $55 .....stailiNp%3/43/43/4.4meamaiwooltiasesisiseisse,, • • • Survey of 633 Industrial Building Sales in Colorado- Costar • • The Colorado statewide average industrial building selling price per SF declined from $67 per SF in June • 2008 to $44 per SF in June 2010, a drop in average selling price of over 34%. There is no question the • current 2011 assessment valuation period is squarely in the middle of a down market. In a down market, the cost approach will overstate property value unless market adjustments factors are • made to reflect the economic conditions. Higher vacancies, lower rents, tight financing all lead to lower • selling prices. This condition is national in nature and it affects local real estate investment properties as • well as large corporations. When manufacturers are stagnant or contracting, the demand for • manufacturing properties is even less. So the "disconnect" between cost and value for heavy industrial • properties is even greater. • Therefore, we are requesting the 2011 valuations of the Vestas facilities to reflect the limited market • appeal of the properties and the negative market conditions as of June 30, 2010. • • • Vestas Blades and Nacelles —Weld County,Colorado • July 13,2011 • Page 14 • • • LOCAL SALES DATA — WELD COUNTY A review of all industrial building sales activity in Weld County was conducted to get a general sense of the level of industrial property value in the local market. We screened out buildings constructed prior to • 1990 or having gross square footage of less than 20,000. In the period from 2008 to current, there were • 15 sales identified. A property report with sales details is attached to this message. ID The buildings ranged in size from 20,000 SF to 130,000 SF. Selling prices ranged from $16 per SF to • $101 per SF with an average of $71 per SF. Not surprisingly, Most of the buildings were light • manufacturing and warehouse properties. However there were a couple very noteworthy transactions. • UOM Technologies/Longmont — Sold 12/2009 for $58.74/SF UQM, a developer of alternative energy technologies, purchased this 2001 constructed facility for • manufacturing and engineering of motors to be installed in all-electric passenger vehicles. The building is 129,304 SF and is situated on almost 30 acres. • • • 1 1 1 1 • • au .. Abound Solar/Longmont — Sold 12/2009 for $79.42/SF This 1998 constructed facility is used for high-technology manufacturing in the renewable energy space. • The building is 126,385 SF and houses the production of thin-film photovoltaic solar modules. Annual production has been reported at 200 megawatts of solar modules annually in two production lines. A • third line is planned for 2012 bringing the facility capacity to 300 megawatts annually. • . . t ^.�� .. • • • - - r • 1 • • The facility was previously occupied by Applied Films who used the property to apply specialty glass • coatings for flat panel displays. Abound Solar completely retrofitted the building for high-tech • manufacturing including clean rooms and in-floor electrical and plumbing systems. • • Vestas Blades and Nacelles — Weld County, Colorado • July 13, 2011 • Page 15 • • • • • Hexcel Corporation/Windsor — Sold 3/2011 for $98.24/SF This 2008 constructed facility is located in the Great Western Industrial Park adjacent to Vestas. Hexcel purchased the 99,248 SF building for continued use as a glass "prepregs" manufacturing plant supplying • the Vestas Blades facility. The building is characterized by the Weld County Assessor as an Industrial Heavy Manufacturing facility, the same classification as Vestas. Moreover, Rich Montgomery (VP of industrial development for Great Western) stated the building includes some very special features such as five foot heavy concrete slab flooring, clear spans greater than 100 feet, and 40' plus clear ceiling heights. • S. • • • is In • _ ID • • Although the transaction date occurred after June 30, 2010, the sale is still very relevant for valuing the • Vestas facilities in Weld County. Hexcel was the tenant at the time of purchase and the property was • purpose-built. The BROE Group which owned the property and leased to Hexcel reported that purchase negotiations commenced less than 18 months after the 2008 lease commenced. • • Most of the local, Weld County sales data is not heavy industrial manufacturing. It is included here to • demonstrate that research was conducted at the county level as a starting point. But the selling price data from the Abound Solar (high-tech) and Hexcel Corporation (heavy industrial) is very relevant and is worthy of consideration for determining an appropriate value for the Vestas properties. These transactions indicate a plausible range of $80 to $100 per SF. • NATIONAL SALES DATA • • The geographical market for large, heavy manufacturing facilities is certainly regional and often national • in scope. Therefore research was conducted on a national basis for sales of large manufacturing facilities. To obtain transactions of facilities which were comparable to Vestas in terms of modernity, facilities built prior to 1999 were screened out. In many cases, the buildings were less than 5 years old at the time of 411 sale. One exception was made for a 1970s era manufacturing facility that was gutted and retrofitted in IP 2006. The exception was made because the plant was converted to a wind turbine manufacturing facility • and its highly comparable use to Vestas demanded inclusion. We obtained sales data from 2006 through 2010. There were 16 transactions and 2 listings (for sale) for a . total of 18 transactions to review and analyze. Examples include heavy manufacturing plants designed • for food processing, automotive assembly, semi-conductor manufacturing, a wind turbine production. The facilities had building sizes from 240,000 SF to 1 ,400,000 SF. Most plants clustered in the range of •ID• Vestas Blades and Nacelles — Weld County, Colorado • July 13, 2011 Page 16 • • • • • • 250,000 SF to 600,000 SF. Selling prices ranged from $12 to $78 per SF with an average of $36 per • SF. The sales of these facilities highlights the central position we are making in our protest of the 2011 • valuations. Such properties do not command selling prices commensurate with their construction costs. There is absolutely no support in the market to indicate Vestas' facilities would sell for anything approaching the +1- $200 per SF values placed on the properties by Weld County. • • The sales data is attached for your review. A few of the more noteworthy transactions are summarized • here. Intel Semiconductor Campus/Colorado Springs, CO — Sold 11/2009 for $12.21/SF This transaction is perhaps the most compelling recent example of how construction cost does not equal • value. Intel acquired this semiconductor fab facility in 2000 for $45,000,000. At the time, the fab was a shell and had not been built out for manufacturing. Intel completed construction shortly after its • purchase. Then in 2004-2005, Intel spent approximately $600 million upgrading and expanding the • campus significantly. Less than five years later the facility was shuttered and offered for sale. An investor purchased the property in November 2009 for only $15, 100,000 or $12.21 per SF. • „tl, • • • � .-. • , -1 V aID • • • Following the sale, the buyer leased 70,000 SF to Corinthian Colleges on a long-term lease. In June • 2010, El Paso County approved the purchase of 300,000 SF of building area plus a multi-story parking • garage with over 1000 spaces for $25,000,000 or $75 per SF. The county will use the facility for government service offices. The total campus is approximately 1 ,237,000 SF and the new owner is attempting to sell off or lease the property in sections since there are so few potential buyers for a ID property this large. Kyoho Manufacturing Plant/Stockton, CA — Sold 2/2011 for $45.80/SF • • Another example of a new heavy industrial facility selling for well below construction cost is Kyoho's • 2008 constructed state-of-the-art auto parts production plant in Stockton, CA. The $73 million plant opened in 2008 then closed in April 2010, and was offered for sale. The 262,000 SF plant is situated on • 37 acres and sold for continued industrial use to ECS Refining for only $12,000,000 or $45.80 per SF. • • • • • • Vestas Blades and Nacelles — Weld County, Colorado Ryan , Y • Jul 13 2011 Page 17 • ID 411 7 . • • • • ,I r.. I < ■ • • • e - 4111 , • The facility included special features such as large clear span production lines and 35 ' ceilings to • accommodate overhead cranes. The plant was designed for production of large stamped metal body parts • and has thick concrete floors to support heavy equipment. • Getra2 Transmission/Tipton, IN - Sold 12/2010 for $32.00/SF • • The Getrag Transmission plant was in shell condition when the joint venture between Getrag AG and • Chrysler came to a halt in 2008. The heavy manufacturing facility was designed for manufacturing transmissions for the new Phoenix V6 engines. The property fell into bankruptcy and was eventually sold • by the trustee. The 781 ,500 SF plant had a reported original investment in the hundreds of millions of • dollars. • • aseis - _45 4 ,. - •-- • • :Aga • • In June 2010, Colorado based Abound Solar announced it would be purchasing the facility for use as a solar module plant. Abound Solar obtained huge loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy to • assist with purchasing this facility and expanding the Longmont, CO property (described above) along • with the requisite machinery & equipment. Clipper Windpower/Cedar Rapids, IA — Available for Sale at $45.77/SF • 411 This 356,000 SF manufacturing plant was acquired by Clipper Windpower in 2006 through a lease agreement. The original building dates back to 1971 . Clipper gutted and renovated the facility in 2006 for the production of Liberty 2.5 megawatt wind turbines. • • • • • • • Vestas Blades and Nacelles — Weld County, Colorado • July 13, 2011 Page 18 • • • • • • e .S' %J. am I • • , — • I . i c�� l' �+� .t.. •r� it et/ f - r. . 411 iss rib I f a- �� 1• „ +a A .• *Pr • • r „:..• The property is currently offered for sale with an asking price of $16.3 million or $45.77 per SF. The • actual selling price will likely be less than the asking price, but the prospect of a secure tenant with a • remaining lease term of 9 years (inlcuding renewal option) makes it an attractive investment. • TAXPAYER'S REQUESTED VALUE • • We believe there is substantial support for the Vestas facilities to be valued at far less than the +1- $200 • per SF levels currently proposed. In looking at both the local market data and national sales data, and taking into account differences for location and quality of construction, the upper end of the indicated • value range is $80 to $ 100 per SF. Therefore if the cost approach is to be used for setting the assessment, • we are requesting a market adjustment factor to bring it in line with market conditions as of the valuation • date. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Vestas Blades and Nacelles — Weld County, Colorado • July 13, 2011 • Page 19 • • • • • WK:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of(ha State of Colorado et al.v Colorado Arlberg Club,Supreme Cowl of Colorado,20.pdf • Colorado State Tax Reporter, Board of Assessment Appeals of the State • of Colorado et al. v. Colorado Arlberg Club, Supreme Court of Colorado, • ¶200-280, (Sept. 19, 1988) • Click to open document in a browser • Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado et al.v. Colorado Arlberg Club • ¶200-280. Supreme Court of Colorado, No. 86SC175 , 86SC175, 762 P.2d 146, September 19, 1988. • (Reversal of Colorado Court of Appeals decision, see¶200-252 ) Property: Basis of assessment: Determination of actual value: Decision by the Board of Assessment • Appeals.—The Board of Assessment Appeals(Board)correctly determined the assessment value of a 125- acre parcel of vacant land owned by a nonprofit organization by(1)concluding that the"open space" land, as designated under a Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.) plan, could be developed, and (2)including in • its valuation the possibility of future use of the land for condominium units.The final P.U.D. plan reserved 25%of the affected property as open space and subjected the entire property to taxation at its fair market • value.Valuation for tax assessment purposes includes consideration of(1)the actual value of the property • (by considering the cost, market, and income approaches to appraisal), (2)the statutorily mandated base year, and (3)the character of the property. • In considering the actual value of the property,the Board correctly found that the vacant land could be • developed because the land was not within the statutory definition of"common open space."The evidence showed that the land was not open to all residents, occupants, and owners of the P.U.D., but was only open • to members of the nonprofit organization.Also, it was not within the statutory definition of"private open • space,"because that designation applies only to land held for residential, not commercial, use. The Board was correct in considering the land's reasonable future use during its determination of present • fair market value because future use reflects a market participant's perception of future benefits from the acquisition. Market value is the value that a"willing buyer would pay a willing seller under normal • economic conditions."A future use of the property influences this value.Also, no Colorado statute precluded • consideration of the future use value of property when calculating its present market value, and the courts only disallow this kind of consideration when the proposed future use is considered speculative or impossible. • The Board's determination that a condominium project was a reasonable future use of the vacant land was correct because it was not speculative and was supported by evidence. Determination of the price on which • a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree includes consideration of the highest and best future use for the property. The evidence supported the Board's determination that(1)the value of the vacant land should • reflect the potential number of condominium units per acre, (2)there was a reasonable possibility of rezoning • the property to allow condominium development, and (3)the land was not too steep to allow condominium development. • The value given for the future development of the vacant land, which was based on the potential number of condominium units per acre of land, was not speculative, because it was based on data provided by • recent sales of other unsubdivided property. Evidence of prior changes in the P.U.D. density requirements • supported the Board's contention that the P.U.D. could probably be amended to allow development of the land into a condominium project.Also, various experts found that it was physically feasible to build • condominium units on the land. • Attorneys for Petitioners: Anthony J. DiCola; Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado. Duane Woodard, Attorney General, Charles B. Howe, Deputy Attorney General, Richard H. Forman, Solicitor General, Larry A. • Williams,Asistant Attorney General, General Legal Services Section Denver, Colorado. • Attorney for Respondent: Karen M. Zulauf, Buchanan, Gray, Purvis&Schuetze, Boulder, Colorado. • Justice Mullarkeydelivered the Opinion of the Court. Justice Ericksonspecially concurs. Justice RoviraJustice Vollackdo not participate. • The Colorado Arlberg Club(Club)sought judicial review of the Board of Assessment Appeals' (Board's)final • decision holding that its real property had an actual value of$1,840,585.00 and a valuation for assessment • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • I • • • ID • • • • WK_:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado at al.v.Colorado Adberg Club,Supreme Court of Colorado,20 pdt • of$533,770.00 for the tax year 1983. The district court affirmed and the court of appeals reversed. Colorado • Arlberg Club v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 719 P.2d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). We granted the Board's petition for certiorari. • The Board contends that the court of appeals improperly substituted its own findings of fact for those of the • Board. The board also argues that the reasonable future use of real property is relevant to the property's present fair market value for tax purposes, and that condominium development is a reasonable future use of • the Club's property.We agree with each of these points.Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals with instructions to return the matter to the district court for reinstatement of its judgment affirming • the Board's final decision. • I. [ Law] • Valuation for assessment depends on (1)the actual value of the property(2)in a statutorily-mandated • base year and (3)the character of the property, e.g.,whether it is commercial, residential, agricultural, or mining property.With exceptions not relevant here,the first element, actual value, is"that value determined • by appropriate consideration of the cost approach, the market approach, and the income approach to • appraisal."§39-1-103(5)(a), 16B C.R.S. (1983 Supp.); t see also Cob. Const. art.X, §3(1)(a). The actual value used in a given tax year is that property's actual value during a previous year specified by statute— the"base year." See§§39-1-104(9)to(11), 166 C.R.S. (1982& 1983 Supp.); see also Carrara Place, Ltd. v. • Arapahoe County Bd. of Equalization, No. 86SA341 (Cob. September 12, 1988)(discussing policy reasons for legislative adoption of base year method of appraisal).The third factor,the character of the property, • determines the ratio between the property's actual value and its valuation for assessment. See Cob. Const. • art.X, §3(1)(b). • it. [ Facts] • The Club is a nonprofit Colorado corporation which owns 125.47 acres of property near Winter Park ski area, in the Town of Winter Park, Grand County, Colorado. It originally owned the entire 160 acre parcel known as • the Mary Jane Placer. In 1980, it sold thirty-five acres to Penobscot Land Corporation. That land has been • developed as the Iron Horse Condominiums, which consist of 141 condominium units and approximately fourteen and one-third acres of open space. Of the land still owned by the Club, approximately twenty-eight • acres are leased to the Winter Park Recreation Association.Approximately eighteen and one-quarter acres • are occupied by the clubhouse facilities, where Club members and their guests sleep and eat.The remaining property, approximately seventy-nine acres, is vacant land which has been left undeveloped to preserve the • Club members' privacy.All of the Club's property is subject to a planned unit development(PUD)which also applies to the Iron Horse Condominiums and to ninety acres of land owned by the City and County of Denver • and leased to Winter Park Recreation Association. See§§24-67-101 to-108, 10 C.R.S. (1982)(the Planned • Unit Development Act of 1972). In tax year 1982,the Club's property had a valuation for assessment of$95,630.00. Two significant legal • changes affected the property's 1983 valuation. First,the base year changed from 1973 to 1977. See • §§39-1-104(9)(a), (10)(a), 16B C.R.S. (1982). Second,the ratio between the valuation for assessment and the actual value of commercial property was decreased from thirty per cent to twenty-nine per cent. See • Cob. Const. art.X, §3(1)(b); §39-1-104(1), 168 C.R.S. (1982& 1987 Supp.). • The initial notice which the Club received from the Grand County Assessor's Office for tax year 1983 stated that the Club's real property had a valuation for assessment of$647,300.00.The Club protested • pursuant to section 39-5-122(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982), and as a result of a property value review the assessor decreased the valuation for assessment to$545,790.00.The Club then petitioned the Grand County • Board of Equalization, 2 see sections 39-5-122(3)and 39-8-106, 168 C.R.S. (1982 & 1983 Supp.), which • decreased the valuation for assessment to$533,700.00. • Still dissatisfied,the Club appealed to the Board of Assessment Appeals (the petitioner in this court) pursuant to section 39-8-108(1), 168 C.R.S. (1982).At the hearing before the Board, both the Club • and the Grand County Board of Equalization presented evidence regarding the property's topography, • its current zoning and use under the PUD, and its potential for use as a condominium development. • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer. All rights reserved. • 2 • • • • • • • • WK:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado et at.v Colorado Arlberg Club,Supreme Court of Colorado,2001 • The Board concluded that the testimony showed that the PUD"could probably be amended to allow • additional development on the vacant land"and that the"vacant land could support a significant number of condominium units."After reviewing the appraisals and other evidence presented by each side, it affirmed • the Board of Equalization's actions. Having exhausted its administrative remedies,the Club sought judicial review in the district court pursuant • to section 39-8-108(2), 16B C.R.S. (1983 Supp.).Judicial review of the Board's actions is governed by • the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, section 24-4-106, 10 C.R.S. (1982). See §39-8-108(2), 16B C.R.S. (1983 Supp.).The Club asserted that its clubhouse was residential property • subject to assessment at twenty-one per cent of actual value; the seventy-nine acres of vacant land should • have been valued as"open space"; and the Board had erred by failing to accept the Club's appraiser, John Kendall, as an expert. The district court concluded that the Board's findings that the property was commercial • in nature and was not limited exclusively to use as open space were supported by substantial evidence. Because the Board had allowed Kendall to testify and had considered his testimony in reaching its result, • the court reasoned that its refusal to accept him as an expert was, at most, harmless error.Accordingly, the • district court affirmed the Board's final decision in all respects. The Club raised the same arguments before the court of appeals.Although the court of appeals concluded • that the evidence supported the Board's classification of the property as commercial, it agreed with the • Club's other contentions.Therefore, it reversed and remanded for a new hearing. • We granted the Board's petition for certiorari.The Club has not contested the valuation of the buildings on its property and the parties agree that the twenty-eight acres which the Club leases to the Winter Park • Recreation Association have an actual value of$400,000.00(or a valuation for assessment of$116,000.00). The Club no longer challenges the Board's classification of its property as commercial. Therefore, the issues • before us relate only to the valuation of the remaining ninety-seven acres (the eighteen acres on which the • clubhouse is located and the seventy-nine acres of vacant land). Specifically, the parties disagree about whether that land is"open space,"whether reasonable future use of that land can be considered, and • whether condominium development is a reasonable future use. • III. [" Open Space"] • We first consider the Board's assertion that the court of appeals improperly substituted its finding that the • Club's vacant land was open space under the PUD for the Board's finding that it was not.3 We agree that • the court of appeals erred in this respect. The Board's findings and conclusions stated in pertinent part that: • Testimony showed that the[Club]and the Winter Park Recreation Association negotiated a schematic • PUD plan which was approved by Grand County officials in November 1975.The plan reserved 25 percent of the affected property as open space, but did not designate specific areas to be so reserved. • The plan also included a provision under which the entire property would be subject to taxation at its • fair market value. The open space owned by the[Club]is not included in the PUD. • ... Evidence and testimony were offered to show that the PUD plan, as amended and now governing, • does not designate a maximum number of units which may be built on the property. Testimony also • showed that the PUD could probably be amended to allow additional development on the vacant land. • (Emphasis added.)Although these findings are not a model of clarity, an agency's findings may be express or implied. See Colorado Mun. League v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 759 P.2d 40 (Cob. 1988) (citing • Aspen Airways, Inc. v. Public Utils. Comm'n, 169 Cob. 56, 62-63, 453 P.2d 789, 792 (1969)).The underlined portions of the Board's findings and conclusions imply that(1)the vacant land was located geographically • within the PUD and was subject to the PUD's restrictions, but(2) it was not included in the twenty-five per • cent of the property in the PUD that was reserved for common open space. If the Board had found that the Club's vacant land was not geographically within and governed by the PUD, it obviously would not have • concluded that amendments to the PUD would be necessary to allow development on that land. • • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • 3 • • • • • • • • WK_:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado at at v.Colorado Adbe,g Club,Supreme Court of Colorado,20 pdf • The Board's finding that the Club's vacant land is included in the area subject to the PUD is supported by the final PUD plan, the legal description of the Club's property, and the witnesses'testimony. No one • disputes this finding. However,the Club heatedly contests the Board's finding that the Club's vacant land is • not included as"open space"under the PUD. Common open space is"a parcel of land, an area of water, or combination of land and water within the site • designated for a planned unit development designed and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of • residents, occupants, and owners of the planned unit development."§24-67-103(1), 10 C.R.S. (1982); see also Grand County Planned Unit Development Regulations(PUD Regs.)Art. I, pt.VIII.A. The Club's vacant • land is shown as"open space"on the PUD map. However,the testimony of John C. Mitchell, the Club's • president, supports the Board's finding that the land is not"common open space"as defined in the PUD statute or regulations because it is not open to all residents, occupants, and owners of the PUD, but only to • members of the Club. Mitchell testified that the vacant land is private property,that it had not been dedicated to the master association because the Club wanted to maintain it as private property, and that the Club does • not want the property"used for anything." • Indeed, in this court the Club concedes the undeveloped land was not common open space, arguing only that it should have been taxed as"private open space" pursuant to sections 39-1-102(7.5)and (12.3), 16B • C.R.S. (1982)(repealed effective May 20, 1987). Section 39-1-102(7.5)provided that"'Land used for open • space residential purposes' means land of up to thirty-five acres, part of which is used for residential and related purposes and part of which is used for open space."Because section 39-1-102(12.3),which defined • "[p]ortion of land used for open space,"did not require such land to be available to the public,the Club refers • to this provision as authorizing private open space. However,the Board classified the Club's property as commercial, not residential, and that classification is not challenged before this court. Because no portion of • the Club's property is used for"residential and related purposes"as defined by section 39-1-102(12.4), 16B C.R.S. (1982), its land did not qualify as"private open space." • In short, the Board's finding was supported by competent evidence.The administrative agency, not the • reviewing courts, has the task of weighing the evidence and resolving any conflicts. See Colorado Mun. League, No. 86SA347,slip op. at 7; G&G Trucking Co. v. Public Utils. Comm'n, 745 P.2d 211, 216(Colo. • 1987); Marek v. State, Dept of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 709 P.2d 978(Cob. Ct.App. 1985) (if • evidence is conflicting, reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder). A reviewing court may not set aside a decision by the Board of Assessment Appeals unless it is"unsupported by any • competent evidence."Board of County Comm'rs v. Colorado Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 628 P.2d 156, • 158(Cob. Ct.App. 1981). See generally§24-4-106(7), 10 C.R.S. (1982)(reviewing court can set aside agency action if, inter alia, it is"based upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous on the whole record, • [or] unsupported by substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole"). Therefore, the court of appeals erred by reweighing the evidence and rejecting the Board's finding that the Club's property was not • "open space" under the PUD. • IV. [ Reasonable Future Use] • The next question before this court is whether the court of appeals was correct to conclude that the Board • could not consider reasonable future use of the Club's property to determine its present fair market value. We have explained that market value is"what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller under normal • economic conditions." May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc. v. Shoemaker, 151 Cob. 100, 110, 376 P.2d 679, • 683(1962) (tax case); Fellows v. Grand Junction Sugar Co., 78 Cob. 393, 242 P.635(1925) (tax case); see also Goldstein v. Denver Urban Renewal Auth., 192 Colo.422, 560 P.2d 80 (1977) (eminent domain case); • Department of Highways v. Schulhoff, 167 Cob. 72, 445 P.2d 402 (1968)(eminent domain case); Vivian v. Board of Trustees, 152 Cob. 556, 383 P.2d 801 (1963) (eminent domain case). See generally CJI-Civ.2d • 33:3 (defining reasonable market value for eminent domain proceedings). Our definition is consistent with the • basic definition of market value used by appraisers: • The most probable price in cash, terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the appraised property will sell in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to fair sale, • with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, and assuming • that neither is under undue duress. • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • 4 • • • • • • • • WK_:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of State of Colorado et at.v.Colorado Adberg Club,Supreme Court of Colorado,20.pdf • American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Appraisal of Real Estate 33 (8th ed. 1983); see also Comment, The Road to Uniformity in Real Estate Taxation: Valuation and Appeal, 124 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1418, • 1430(1976)(market value is defined as the price reached"in a fair, arm's length transaction between willing • parties")(footnote omitted). • As the court of appeals acknowledged,we have ruled that reasonable future use is relevant to market value n several eminent domain cases. See, e.g., Stark v, Poudre School Dist. R-1, 192 Cob. 396, 398, 560 • P.2d 77, 79 (1977)(effect of rezoning on present market value may be considered if it rises to level of a probability); Schulhoff, 167 Cob. 72,445 P.2d 402 (quoting Wassenich v. City& County of Denver, 67 Colo. • 456,466-67, 186 P. 533, 537 (1919), which held that"[a]ny reasonable future use"could be considered); • see also State Dept of Highways, Div. of Highways v. Odgen, 638 P.2d 832, 834 (Cob. Ct. App. 1981) (jury should have been allowed to consider"most advantageous use to which the property could be put"). • However,the court of appeals reasoned that because the"assessor can periodically reassess the tax on a property, based on changes in the property's use, on new improvements, or on changes in present • market value ... equity dictates that the principles of the law of eminent domain not be transferred to tax • assessment situations." Colorado Arlberg Club, 719 P.2d at 373. For several reasons,we disagree. First,the one-time nature of an eminent domain payment has nothing to do with our rule that reasonable • future use must be considered in calculating just compensation for a government taking. Instead, reasonable • future use is considered because it is relevant to the property's present market value. See Board of County Comm'rs v. Vail Assocs., 171 Colo. 381, 388, 468 P.2d 842, 845(1970) ("It is fundamental that evidence • of the highest and best use to which the property may reasonably be applied in the future by[people]of • ordinary prudence and judgment is admissible to assist the commission or jury in arriving at the present cash market value of the property being taken."). For example, a tract of undeveloped land with potential for • development has a higher present fair market value than the same size tract of undeveloped land with no such potential, i.e., even in its undeveloped state, a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree on a higher • price for it. • Given this rationale, it becomes clear that the fact that periodic reassessments and reassessments based • on certain "unusual conditions"pursuant to section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I), 16B C.R.S. (1983 Supp.), are permitted in tax cases is irrelevant to the concept or calculation of a property's present fair market value for • tax assessment purposes. Because the distinction relied on by the court of appeals provides no basis for analysis, and because the legislature has never indicated that it intended the words"market approach"or • "market value"to be given any special meaning for tax purposes, our common law interpretation applies. See Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113, 116, 485 P.2d 886, 887-88 (1971)("the common law may be used in aid of • the meaning to be given statutory language when such language is not defined in the statute"); 2A N. Singer, • Sutherland's Statutory Construction, §§47.30, 50.03(Sands 4th ed. 1984 rev.). • A second reason for considering reasonable future use is that it is one element of the technical meaning of market value. It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that'[w]ords and phrases that have • acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly."§2-4-101, 1B C.R.S. (1980). See generally 2A N. Singer, supra, §47.29 (in absence of contrary • evidence, "technical terms or terms of art used in a statute are presumed to have their technical meaning"). • "In the market,the current value of a property is not based on historical prices or cost of creation; it is based on what market participants perceive to be the future benefits of acquisition."American Institute of Real • Estate Appraisers, supra, at 21; see also Comment, supra, 124 U. Pa. L. Rev. at 1431-32 (comparable sales • method to determining market value involves"taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might be applied')(footnote omitted and emphasis added).Accordingly, a property's"highest • and best use,"which is"[t]he use,from among reasonably probable and legal alternative uses, found to • be physically possible, appropriately supported,financially feasible,that results in highest land value," is a "crucial determinant of value in the market."American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, supra, at 28, 243. • Further,the Board clearly considered the property's future use to be relevant to its present market value and"[t]he construction of statutes by administrative officials charged with their enforcement should be given • deference by a reviewing court."Hewlett-Packard Co. v. State, Dept of Revenue, 749 P.2d 400, 406 (Cob. • 1988). • • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • 5 • • • • • • • • WK:Colorado Slate Tax Reporter.Board of Assessment Appeals of the state of Colorado al al.v.Colorado Arlberg Club,Supreme Cowl of Colorado,20.pdf • Finally, while we recognize that some courts have been reluctant to allow consideration of future uses in tax assessments, many of the cases on which the Club relies involved assessments based on future uses that • were speculative or impossible. See, e.g. People ex ref. Empire Mortgage Co. v. Cantor, 197 A.D.437, 189 • N.Y.S.646 (1921)(reliance on fanciful"prophetic vision"of development was"even more absurd" in tax case than in eminent domain case); Finch v. Grays Harbor County, 121 Wash.486, 209 P. 833 (1922)(when cost • of clearing land would exceed its value, much of the land could never be drained, and there was no demand • for use on which assessor relied,"valuation was grossly excessive"). Other cases cited by the parties prohibit valuing undeveloped property as if it had been improved. See, e.g., • City of Newark v. West Milford Township, Passaic County, 9 N.J.295, 88 A.2d 211, 215 (1952)(value msut • be based on"actual condition in which the owner holds it"and assessor cannot ignore lack of public utility service or value land as though it already were subdivided); Allied Stores, Inc. v. Finance Adm'r, 76 A.D.2d • 835,428 N.Y.S.2d 316(1980)(not permissible to determine that property's actual use was no longer viable and to value it as though it had been used more profitably). As explained in Part V below, these limitations • apply to both eminent domain and tax cases in Colorado, and do not preclude consideration of reasonable • future uses. • The Club also relies on several New York cases which state an absolute rule that only the property's current use can be considered for tax assessments. See, e.g., Addis Co. v. Srogi, 79 A.D.2d 856,434 N.Y.S.2d 489 • (1980), appeal denied, 53 N.Y.2d 603,421 N.E.2d 853,439 N.Y.S.2d 1026 (1981); Kalski v. Fitzgerald, 25 A.D.2d 573, 266 N.Y.S.2d 620 (1966). However, a New York statute explicitly requires that real property be . taxed "according to its condition and ownership"on March 1 of the tax year. See N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law • section 302.1 (McKinney 1988 Supp.).The reasoning of cases decided under that statute does not apply here because our statute does not preclude consideration of future uses. • Other states with statutes more similar to ours, requiring only that the assessment be based on the • property's full and fair value, have recognized that"the normal uses to which potential purchasers could put[the property] must be considered" because that is part of the property's market value. Pacific Mut. Life • Ins. Co. v. County of Orange, 187 Cal.App. 3d 1141, 1148, 232 Cal. Rptr. 233, 236 (1985); see also Wild Goose Country Club v. Butte County, 60 Cal.App. 339, 212 P. 711, 712 (1922)(in valuing property for • tax purposes, "[t]he question is, not what its value is for a particular purpose, but its value in view of all the • purposes to which it is naturally adapted."); Division of Tax Appeals v. Township of Ewing, 72 N.J. Super. 238, 178 A.2d 229, 231 (1962)("assessor must consider the possibility of sale to a buyer who intends a • different use, unless such possibility is so remote as to have no real bearing upon current value"). N.J. Stat. • Ann. section 54:4-23 (West 1986)provides that the assessor shall"determine the full and fair value"based on the price which the property"would sell for at a fair and bona fide sale."That definition is similar to our • definition of market value, and we agree with the distinction stated by the New Jersey Superior Court: • An assessor who values a farm as though actually subdivided into the building lots of a residential development,when in fact that has not yet occurred,would be in error; but he would also err if he • refuses to consider that a developer would pay a higher price for the farm than another farmer. • Division of Tax Appeals v. Township of Ewing, 178 A.2d at 232. • To summarize,the reasonable future use of real property is an element of its fair market value under its technical definition as well as its common law interpretation in Colorado and elsewhere. Because there is • no indication that the legislature intended to reject or distinguish those definitions here, we conclude that • reasonable future use is relevant to a property's current market value for tax assessment purposes. The court of appeals'contrary holding was erroneous. • V. [ Condominium Development] • We now turn to the key question—whether condominium development was a reasonable future use of the • Club's property.As the Club correctly notes, speculative future uses cannot be considered in determining present market value. See, e.g., Board of County Comm'rs v. Vail Assocs., 171 Colo. at 388-89,468 P.2d at • 846; Schulhoff, 167 Colo. at 75-79, 445 P.2d at 404-06. In addition,the Board cannot assess the property at • the value which it will have after being subdivided and developed to its highest and best use.An anticipated development cannot be viewed"as an accomplished fact,"because such an approach would ignore the • substantial but unknown costs involved in such a development. Schulhoff, 167 Colo. at 77, 445 P.2d at 405 • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • 6 • • • • • • • • WK:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado et al.v.Colorado Arlberg Club,Supreme Court of Colorado,20.pdf • (because cost of subdividing is speculative, cannot value property as if subdivision had been accomplished); City of Aurora v. Webb, 41 Cob.App. 11, 15, 585 P.2d 288,292 (1978). Instead,the property's highest and • best use is only relevant to the Board's determination of the price on which a willing buyer and a willing seller • would agree for the property in its present condition. Board of County Comm'rs v. Vail Assocs., 171 Colo. 388-89,468 P.2d at 846 (compensation is for value of land"as it exists at the time of the condemnation, • taking into consideration its highest and best future use"). • If the Board's findings are consistent with these limitations on the consideration of future use and are supported by competent evidence, they cannot be ignored or rejected by the reviewing courts. See Board of • County Comm'rs v. Colorado Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 628 P.2d at 158; see also Colorado Mun. League, • slip op. at 7-8. The Club attacks the Board's findings regarding the potential for development on three grounds. First, • it asserts that the appraisal method used by Kenneth McTaggart,the appraiser called by the Board of • Equalization,was improper because he valued the land on a"per unit" basis and allegedly ignored important factors such as the cost of utilities and sanitation. Second,the Club contends that the possibility of rezoning • to allow development was speculative and should not be have been considered. Finally,the Club argues that • its land was too steep to allow development.As explained below, none of these attacks is persuasive. • A. • At the hearing before the Board, McTaggart was accepted as an expert on the value of real property. To determine how many condominium units could be built on the Club's property, McTaggart compared the • land to the Iron Horse Condominiums, the development built on the adjoining tract of land which the Club • had sold in 1980.That development had a density of 4.08 condominium units per acre. Because the Club's property had more steep areas, McTaggart concluded that it was only"two-thirds as developable"as the Iron • Horse Condominiums and that an average of 2.72 condominium units per acre could be built on the Club's property.These figures resulted in a determination that 265 units could be built(2.72 units per acre multiplied • by 97.47 acres). McTaggart acknowledged that some portions of the Club's property were too steep for • development but stated that 265 units could be clustered in the flatter areas and could be built in one corner, on a sixteen to twenty-five acre parcel, leaving forty per cent of the Club's property undeveloped. • He then used the comparable sales method of appraisal,4 which means he calculated the value of the • Club's property based on recent sale prices of similar undeveloped properties.This accepted method of determining fair market value has been described as"the most accurate method."Comment, supra, 127 • U.Pa. L.Rev. at 1431. McTaggart determined the comparable properties'sale prices per acre (the per acre • method)and their sale prices per potential condominium unit that could be built(the per unit method). He concluded that the ninety-seven acres had an actual value of$1,600,000.00.Added to the $400,000.00 • actual value of the twenty-eight acres leased to the Winter Park Recreation Association,this resulted in an • actual value of$2,000,000.00 and a valuation for assessment of$580,000.00. The Club's appraiser,John Kendall, was not accepted as an expert witness, but was allowed to testify as • to his valuation of the land. Kendall believed that the property's highest and best use was development as • permitted by the PUD.Without amendments to the PUD,thirty-one units could be built on the parcel where the clubhouse was located and no units could be built on the vacant land. Like McTaggart, Kendall used the • comparable sales method of appraisal; 5 however, Kendall compared the properties using only the per unit • method and did not consider the per acre method. He obtained a similar per unit value for the property, but because his appraisal was based on the potential for building only thirty-one condominiums, it resulted in • an actual value of only$217,000.00 for the ninety-seven acres in dispute.Added to the$400,000.00 actual 41. value of the twenty-eight acres leased to the Recreation Association, this resulted in an actual value of $617,000.00 and a valuation for assessment of$178,930.00. • The Club asserts that McTaggarts's appraisal was speculative and inadmissible because it valued the • land on a per unit basis.As we explained in Herring v. Platte River Power Authority, 728 P.2d 709, 712 (Colo. 1986),the Schulhoff rule precludes reliance on sales of subdivided property to determine the value • of unsubdivided land under the comparable sales method. In the case now before us, both appraisals were based on sales of other unsubdivided land, which resulted in an actual value of approximately$7,000.00 • per potential condominium unit.The Club has never suggested that a completed condominium unit in a • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • 7 • • • • • • • • WK:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado et at.v.Colorado Adberg Club.Supreme Court of Colorado,20pdf • subdivision located between Winter Park and Mary Jane ski areas would sell for only$7,000.00 and the • record makes clear that the valuation was based on the undeveloped property's potential for development, not on the assumption that the subdivision and development had been completed. In addition, the Club's • appraiser, Kendall, relied solely on the per unit method in his valuation, explaining that the price a buyer would pay would be determined by how the land could be developed and that"value per acre doesn't tell you • anything." Under these circumstances,the Board's reliance on the per unit appraisal method was not error. • The Club also argues that McTaggart's appraisal ignored important factors such as the cost of utilities and sanitation. Neither appraiser explicitly considered these factors, but, as explained above, it is clear that • neither valued the property as if it were subdivided and the condominiums were built. If the cost of building • the units or their marketability was not considered, it was the Club's burden to present evidence regarding these factors and to show that the assessor and the Board of Equalization had erred by ignoring them. • See§24-4-106(7), 10 C.R.S. (1982). Instead of presenting such evidence, the Club called Kendall, whose 411 appraisal did not differ from McTaggart's as to the per unit market value of the land, suggesting that he agreed with McTaggart as to the effect of these factors.Therefore, the Club failed to meet its burden of • proof. • B. • Having rejected the Club's attacks on McTaggart's appraisal method,we now turn to its challenges to the • factual assumptions underlying his valuation.We have explained previously that evidence of possible rezoning is admissible in an eminent domain proceeding if"it would reasonably be reflected in present • market value,"i.e., if it"rises to the level of a probability." Stark, 192 Colo. at 398, 560 P.2d at 79. The same standard applies here. Therefore,the question is whether the evidence supported the Board's finding that the • PUD probably could be amended to allow development on the Club's land. • The evidence in this case showed that several changes in the density requirements had been permitted subsequent to the adoption of the PUD in 1980. No evidence was presented that any request for an increase • ever had been denied.The Mary Jane day center,which is located on property designated as"open space" • on the final PUD, dramatically illustrates the potential for development of"open space." • Phillip D. Del Vecchio, planning director for the Town of Winter Park, testified that the Town of Winter Park 6 had freely permitted increases in residential density and had "exercised great caution"only regarding the • amount of commercial space. He estimated that the approved density of Denver's land located in the PUD had increased by 300 per cent and agreed that, as of January 1, 1983, conditions in the Town of Winter Park • had changed sufficiently to allow additional amendments. He explained that an application for amendment • initially would be evaluated based on the underlying zoning, and that the underlying zoning for the Club's vacant land allowed twenty-eight units per acre and required forty per cent of the land to be reserved as • open space. • Steve Amsbaugh, director of planning for the Winter Park Recreation Association, testified that the PUD had been amended"frequently." Ray Moody, Jr., who was the county manager for Grand County at the • time of the hearing and had been director of planning for the county when the PUD was adopted,testified • that the PUD is"an interim step to get to the end result, which is the platting process," 7 that it is"similar to a sketch,"and that, while the"plats should conform as closely as possible"to the PUD plan,the PUD is • not binding. Herbert A. Ritschard, Chairman of the Board of Grand County Commissioners at the time the • PUD was adopted,testified that the Board intended to"allow substantial development to occur on the City land and the Arlberg Club land." In addition, because only twenty-five per cent of the property was required • to be open space under the county regulations, see PUD Regs.Art. III, pt. II.A, much of the area could be • developed without violating the open space regulations. We recognize that the land is designated as open space on the PUD map and that the Town of Winter Park • must approve any changes in the PUD. Del Vecchio testified that the Town of Winter Park requires a letter • showing that water and sewer facilities are available or could be installed prior to approving increases in density.The statute requires a public hearing prior to substantial modification. §24-67-106(3)(b), 10 C.R.S. • (1982). Because no evidence was presented that a change in the plan had been requested,that a public hearing had been held, or that water and sewer facilities were or could be made available, the record does • not establish definitively that an amendment allowing some of the"open space"to be used for condominiums • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • 8 • • • • • • • • WK_:Colorado State Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado et al,it Colorado Adberg Club,Supreme Court of Colorado,20,pd • would be approved. However, it contains competent evidence sufficient to support the Board's finding that • such an amendment probably would be approved and, therefore, the court of appeals erred by substituting its judgment for the Board's on this issue. • C. • The evidence regarding whether condominium development was physically feasible also was conflicting. • Portions of the property are quite steep, and Amsbaugh and Mitchell both testified that the vacant land was • too steep for ski runs. Kenneth Egan, a Club member who had been on the committee which worked on the PUD, explained that the land was designated as open space"because it's undevelopable."Amsbaugh • also asserted that open space was generally"hard-to-build-on areas," but he conceded that about half of the Club's vacant land was developable.As noted in part V.A., McTaggart testified that because of the steep • areas,the Club's property was only two-thirds as developable as the adjoining thirty-five acre parcel. He • explained that he did not envision each acre of the Club's land being equally developed and that the 265 condominium units which he considered the highest and best use of the property could all be clustered on • a sixteen to twenty-five acre parcel.This evidence is sufficient to support the Board's finding that significant • development was feasible. • D. • Because, based on competent evidence,the Board found that the PUD probably could be amended and that the property was not too steep for condominium development, its consideration of McTaggart's appraisal t• was not improper reliance on a speculative or impossible future use. Instead,the Board acted properly by • ascertaining the property's market value based on its current condition and its reasonable future use for condominium development. The court of appeals erred by ignoring the evidence which established the • probability of amendments to the PUD and the feasibility of development and by overruling the Board's • findings. • VI. [ Conclusion] • Because the Board's decision was supported by competent evidence and was based on a correct interpretation of market value, the court of appeals erred by reversing it and remanding this matter for a • new hearing. 9 Accordingly,we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the matter with • instructions to return it to the district court for reinstatement of its judgment affirming the Board's decision. • Footnotes - • 1 Unless otherwise stated, all citations are to the statutes applicable to tax year 1983. 2 Except in the City and County of Denver,the board of county commissioners serves as the board of • equalization. See§39-8-101, 166 C.R.S. (1982). • 3 The Board suggests that because during negotiations regarding the PUD the Club agreed that its property would be taxed, it cannot now seek treatment of that property as"open space."The Board • apparently misunderstands the Club's argument.The Club concedes that its property should be taxed, but argues that its taxes should be decreased because its"open space" is less valuable than a tract the • same size which is available for commercial development. • 4 McTaggart's appraisal did not satisfy the limitations on use of comparable properties set forth in section 39-1-103(8), 16B C.R.S. (1982& 1983 Supp.), but since neither the parties, nor the lower • courts, nor the administrative decision-makers addressed the effect of this defect, that issue is not • before us. 5 Kendall's appraisal also failed to comply with the requirements set forth in section 39-1-103(8), 16B • C.R.S. (1982& 1983 Supp.), but because the question of the effect of this failure was not preserved for • review,we do not decide it. 6 The Club was in the unincorporated part of Grand County when the PUD was adopted. Later, it • was annexed to the Town of Winter Park.As a result of the annexation, although Grand County • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • 9 • • • • • • • • WK:Colorado Stale Tax Reporter,Board of Assessment Appeals of the Stale of Colorado et al v Colorado Adberg Club,Supreme Court of Colorado,20.pdf • approved the PUD, the Town of Winter Park now has responsibility for granting or denying requests for amendments to the PUD. See§§24-67-104 and-106, 10 C.R.S. (1982)(county may authorize and • amend PUD's in unincorporated portion of county; municipality has that authority within its corporate • limits). DelVecchio testified that the Winter Park Planning and Zoning Commission and Utilities Council were responsible for making recommendations to the Town Council, which had authority to grant or • deny requested amendments. • 7 "'Plat'means a map and supporting materials ... prepared ... for recording of real estate interests with the county clerk and recorder."§30-28-101(5), 12A C.R.S. (1986).Approval and filing of a final • subdivision plat is a prerequisite to construction and sale. See PUD Regs.Art. II, pt. I, Step 6A. • 8 The Club asserts that regardless of our ruling on all other issues, we must remand for a new hearing at which its appraiser is accepted as an expert.Although he was not accepted as an expert, the Club's • appraiser was permitted to present his opinion of the land's value and to testify about the methods • used in his valuation. See CRE 701.The Club apparently is concerned that the Board gave undue weight to McTaggart's testimony.An expert's opinion is not binding on the fact finder, but should be • considered and weighed together with the other evidence. See People v. King, 181 Colo.439, 510 P.2d 333(1973); Young v. Burke, 139 Colo. 305, 307, 338 P.2d 284, 285 (1959) ("the court, when sitting as • a trier of the facts, ... is the final judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses, including expert • witnesses"); C JI-Civ.2d 3:15 (1980). Because the Board had discretion to decide which appraiser's opinion was more credible, regardless of whether it accepted Kendall as an expert, its ruling on this • issue was, at most, harmless error and is not grounds for a new hearing. See C.R.C.P.61. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ©2011 Wolters Kluwer.All rights reserved. • to • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • WELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SALES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Vestas Blades and Nacelles—Weld County,Colorado July 13,2011 • Page 30 • • • • - i ft In m T. -1 , o • L ri �� ' g • • -I • U CD Ooa, ° 1 0) 3 0 Q e A U G 14 ¢ g : CI • RI o y � 5 3 • io Ni) E ►i u— . is • �o Yo a • "o Y • c io O(' 0 51 • , • .9 2 co ,.._ iiied. . r . • C Co O Go rn• 0 D •_ up o 0 ma toin s I , _ c m U d V �y ID JO T I » ° N CI C m • _ z T LUG Q 6 m c�`val uer3 _j Tc. 9 a; CU I. i J r • LL r o .. X J J tS1 COoN�D o o~ 0 O f E° II) O y 0 oy o c o 16 e11 O m • O j m0 J I W °� 0 o r. 20 2° Dunn Platte U. oa411 p �, = 3 c so o p o • L° Ig x j °cv Iii (' m ac 2 ..... .S► tr.), _ , ,„_ o _lit II c _. ° �° 2i ! L 4) 2 air c Q fic ) / lia 40 CI TD ö + .? i O 1 • _ ` - �j y 0 o m c. Yr' G o Et• r "1' 1Jfl1 U m >` r/ '•0v{�' Y 9 E v L c a' a° W t K i- V C Oso rg 77,c S 'nee ' ). co ad to o m Fig_ m r m Ba • _ _°- \ _is > O i sk. ` W �P LL OC ° .. I 5 a. •a; fr O is 1O 7 1 g • i 1_ gps r* 0 CO Z _Ji C • •� as ��e co Glee" Kral . • ' g E t ��.soy e 2 t, 65 0 ...24.__, -wit:, co c6 f_tcg t eV. It •L '1 • •F+ V kill C 52 v y = oa . a o g '. d ` wo c • ° I. ro Co° `� tip ,,L42-- b o U v r m CD`o 0o W • j)\11, O a. C cit • ° 8� • . 1 , IIIC — • 0 • • • • 701 Automation Dr Windsor, CO 80550 • Class B Warehouse Building of 26,750 SF Sold on 05/08/2008 i • for $2,200,000 - Research Complete • buyer • --- , , David Diehl e — = : , • c/o David Diehl 1 III ' . . . t , 148 Remington St I I • Fort Collins, CO 80524 ;_ i (970) 225-8109 J III seller • DRM Real Estate Advisors c/o Chris Ruff • 624 Main St Windsor, CO 80550 • (970) 267-2900 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 60 days Sale Price: $2,200,000 • Sale Date: 05/08/2008 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 78 days Building SF: 26,750 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $82.24 Conditions: Investment Triple Net Pct Office: 29.9% • Land Area SF: 94,961 Pro Forma Cap Rate: 8.6% • Acres: 2.18 Actual Cap Rate: 8.2% $/SF Land Gross: $23.17 Down Pmnt: $2,200,000.00 • Year Built, Age: 1996 Age: 12 Pct Down: 100.0% Parking Spaces: 9 Doc No: 3553342 • Parking Ratio: Trans Tax: • FAR: 0.28 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: IL, Windsor t• Frontage: - No Tenants: 1 Tenancy: Multi Percent Improved: 74.0% • Comp ID: 1530315 Submarket: Weld County Ind • Map Page: - Parcel No: 080722303003 • Property Type: Industrial • income expense data listing broker • Operating Income $189,060 Realtec Commercial Real Estate Services Net Income Net Op 5 - Debt Service 255 E Monroe Dr Capital Expenditure Fort Collins, CO 80525 • p (970) 229-9900 Cash Flow $189,060 Michael Ehler • buyer broker • Brinkman Partners • 3003 E Harmony Rd Fort Collins, CO 80528 (970) 206-4500 • Joshua Guernsey • financing • • • • This copynghted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • ail:, ., d) • • • • • 14136 Valley Dr Longmont, CO 80504 • Class C Warehouse Building of 20,250 SF Sold on 07/01/2008 • for $1 ,070,000 - Research Complete • buyer - - . • McDonald Properties LLC _ 3732 Fowler Ln • Longmont, CO 80503 ... #111 r ■1i se • - • seller � -• _-III _Marlene Swanson • • • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 56 days Sale Price: $1 ,070,000 • Sale Date: 07/01/2008 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 567 days Building SF: 20,250 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $52.84 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: • Land Area SF: 59,242 Actual Cap Rate: • Acres: 1 .36 Down Pmnt: $/SF Land Gross: $18.06 Pct Down: • Year Built, Age: 1997 Age: 11 Doc No: 3564602 Parking Spaces: 26 Trans Tax: $100.70 • Parking Ratio: - Corner: Yes • FAR: 0.34 Zoning: Light Industrial Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 • Frontage: - Percent Improved: 77.2% Tenancy: Multi Submarket: Weld County Ind • Comp ID: 1548541 Map Page: _ III Parcel No: 120723304007 Property Type: Industrial • • ._ . income expense data listing broker el Summit Real Estate & Marketing LLC • Mead, CO 80542 • (970) 535-9200 Carol Davis ID buyer broker • Summit Real Estate & Marketing LLC • Mead, CO 80542 • (970) 535-9200 Carol Davis • financing • 1st Private Lender • Bal/Pmt: $802,500 • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • iiwn0 • • • • • • 100 Commerce Dr Johnstown, CO 80534 • Class C Manufacturing Building of 22,248 SF Sold on • 09/30/2008 for $2,200,000 - Research Complete •" 1 • ON , { buyer l Mayo Properties LLC • 23188 23188 County Rd ` � " « • #14# ill'it 1:- : Berthoud, CO 80513 l • (970) 532-3476 ''- b _ �.eTr. fr.. .Joh n seller _ a • Jowelco LLC I • 100 Commerce Dr Johnstown, CO 80534 • (970) 667-3536 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 35 days Sale Price: $2,200,000 • Sale Date: 09/30/2008 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 47 days Building SF: 22,248 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $98.89 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: . III Land Area SF: 266,587 Actual Cap Rate: - • Acres: 6.12 Down Pmnt: $2,200,000.00 $/SF Land Gross: $8.25 Pct Down: 100.0% • Year Built, Age: 2007 Age: 1 Doc No: 3582686 III Parking Spaces: - Trans Tax: - Parking Ratio: Corner: No • FAR: 0.08 Zoning: - Lot Dimensions: - Percent Improved: _ IIIFrontage: - Submarket: Weld County Ind Tenancy: Single Map Page: - III Comp ID: 1594471 Parcel No: 106103418001 • Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker • Sperry Van Ness/The Group Commercial • 2020 Caribou Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 • (970) 207-0700 Craig Hau • i buyer broker • The Group, Inc. • 2803 E Harmony Rd Fort Collins, CO 80528 (970) 229-0700 • Vern Milton • financing III • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • an. • • • • • • • 4057 Camelot Cir • Longmont, CO 80501 Class B Warehouse Building of 31,017 SF Sold on 01/16/2009 • for $2,900,000 - Research Complete • buyer • Hoad, Inc. • 13025 WCR 16 I Fort Lupton, CO 80621 1 - ' • -mil . • - - seller " " -- • Zeek Partnership, LLLP • 4068 Camelot Cir Longmont, CO 80504 • (970) 535-6074 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 150 days Sale Price: $2,900,000 • Sale Date: 01/16/2009 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 590 days Building SF: 31,017 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $93.50 Conditions: - Pct Office: 19.3% • Land Area SF: 130,419 Pro Forma Cap Rate: . III Acres: 2.99 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: $22.24 Down Pmnt: $2,900,000.00 • Year Built, Age: 2007 Age: 1 Pct Down: 100.0% ill Parking Spaces: - Doc No: 3600320 Parking Ratio: Trans Tax: • FAR: 0.24 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: C-3, City of Longmont • Frontage: - Percent Improved: - Tenancy: Multi Submarket: Weld County Ind • Comp ID: 1637858 Map Page: _ III Parcel No: 120723203007 Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker • Sperry Van Ness/The Group Commercial • 2020 Caribou Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 • (970) 207-0700 Jared Goodman, Cole Herk • buyer broker • Sperry Van Ness/The Group Commercial • 2020 Caribou Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 207-0700 • Dan Leuschen • financing III • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596.III Ryan.)• • • • • 4226 County Rd 22 Longmont, CO 80504 • Class C Food Processing Building of 39,120 SF Sold on • 03/20/2009 for $629,902 - Research Complete buyer _ _ _ . _,, . _ - _ ..IIIIIII �.Ill seller _ • LAURIDSON JOHN C & EULALIE 120 87 • 14570 Young Dr - Brighton, CO 80601 - IIIII • vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $629,902 • Sale Date: 03/20/2009 Status: Full Value Days on Market: - Building SF: 39,120 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $16.10 Conditions: - Pct Office: 19.5% SLand Area SF: 174,240 Pro Forma Cap Rate: _ Ill Acres: 4 Actual Cap Rate: $/SF Land Gross: $3.62 Down Pmnt: • Year Built, Age: 1994 Age: 15 Pct Down: - Parking Spaces: - Doc No: - IDParking Ratio: - Trans Tax: - 41) FAR: 0.22 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: B-2 5 Frontage: - Percent Improved: 83.7% Tenancy: Single Submarket: Weld County Ind III Comp ID: 1885382 Map Page: _ • Parcel No: - Property Type: Industrial 41. • income expense data listing broker • • Unique Properties, LLC-TCN Worldwide • 1873 S Bellaire St Denver, CO 80222 • (303) 321 -5888 Greg Knott III buyer broker • CBRE 4600 S Syracuse St • Denver, CO 80237 • (901) 528-6324 financing III Ill III III This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • • • 3771 Monarch St (2 properties) GIFrederick, CO 80516 • Multi-Property sale of 2 properties for $4,625,000 1 -lea buyer 411 Weibel, Douglas 1981 Amethyst Dr Longmont, CO 80504 ail. II • . seller • Serpentix Conveyor Corporation c/o Mark Alldredge 9085 Marshall Ct Westminster, CO 80031 (303) 430-8427 vital data Name: Glacier Business Park # of Properties: 2 Escrow/Contract: 60 days Sale Price: $4,625,000 Sale Date: 06/30/2009 Status: Confirmed • Days on Market: 196 days Building SF: 70,000 SF Exchange: No Price/SF: $66.07 • Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: - III Land Area SF: 302,742 Actual Cap Rate: - Acres: 6.95 Down Pmnt: $1 ,387,500.00 • $/SF Land Gross: $15.28 Pct Down: 30.0% Comp ID: 1731284 Doc No: 3633581 Trans Tax: _ • Map Page: - Parcel No: 146703105005 [Partial List] • Property Type: Industrial • income expense data listing broker • Unique Properties, LLC-TCN Worldwide • 1873 S Bellaire St Denver, CO 80222 • (303) 321 -5888 Joseph Valdez • buyer broker • Prudential Rocky Mountain Realtors • 275 S Main St Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-2222 Keith Kanemoto, Ed Kanemoto financing 1st Centennial Lending LLC Bal/Pmt: $3,237,500 S • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • an 1111 • S • • • • 4175 Mulligan Dr 1111 Longmont, CO 80504 Manufacturing Building of 32,597 SF Sold on 10/16/2009 for l • $2,730,000 - Research Complete , -F • buyer - Industrialex Manufacturing Corp. , a P' • 6250 Joyce Dr I (`I vir . . ..{ Golden, CO 80403 (303) 456-6847 - atoms. --1 - y v .._____ _ • _ _ seller • OMP Inc III c/o Paul Economakos _ T 4175 Mulligan DrIL IIILongmont, CO 80504 "".4111111L- J (970) 535-6060 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $2,730,000 fa Sale Date: 10/16/2009 Status: Full Value Days on Market: - Building SF: 32,597 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $83.75 Conditions: Business Value Included Pct Office: 22.0% • Land Area SF: 180,513 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - all Acres: 4.14 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: $15.12 Down Pmnt: $520,000.00 • Year Built, Age: 1994 Age: 15 Pct Down: 19.0% Parking Spaces: 39 Doc No: 3656321 Parking Ratio: 1 .2/1000 SF Trans Tax: SFAR: 0.18 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: I, Mead • Frontage: - Percent Improved: - Tenancy: Single Submarket: Weld County Ind • Comp ID: 1822254 Map Page: Pierson Graphics Corp 62-JW31 • Parcel No: 120723001039 Property Type: Industrial S • income expense data listing broker • Expenses - Taxes $48,554 • - Operating Expenses • Total Expenses • buyer broker • • • Sfinancing prior sale • 1st Wells Fargo Bk Date/Doc No: 01/03/2006 el Bal/Pmt: $2,210,000 Sale Price: $1 ,850,000 ComplD: 1083062 • • • Ryan0, This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • • • • • • • 2650 W 29th St Greeley, CO 80631 • Class B Office Building of 23,800 SF Sold on 12/02/2009 for • $1 ,678,760 - Research Complete (Part of Multi-Property) III buyer 00 High Plains Library District 11 �aSizi ls • 2650 W 29th St / MIMI Greeley, CO 80631 ' ' • (970) 506-8500 ' ' I liia , " w ' �. ill -, �., rte, seller . . �-�.'�.__III FDIC 'r' • c/o Brandon Schubert 1601 Bryan St • Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 754-0098 • vital data - - -- ---- ---------- - • Escrow/Contract: 22 days Sale Price: $1,780,000 • Sale Date: 12/02/2009 Status: Allocated Days on Market: 62 days Building SF: 23,800 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $74.70 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: • Land Area SF: 59,743 Actual Cap Rate: • Acres: 1 .37 Down Pmnt: - $/SF Land Gross: $28.10 Pct Down: _ ID Year Built, Age: 2002 Age: 7 Doc No: - . Parking Spaces: 77 Trans Tax: - Parking Ratio: 3.24/1000 SF Corner: Yes 5 FAR: 0.40 Zoning: C-H Lot Dimensions: - Percent Improved: - III Frontage: - Submarket: Weld County III Tenancy: Multi Map Page: Comp ID: 1841236 Parcel No: • Property Type: Office/Whse • • income expense data listing broker Sperry Van Ness/The Group Commercial Expenses - Taxes $26,492 p rY • - Operating Expenses 2020 Caribou Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 • Total Expenses $26,492 (970) 207-0700 Dan Leuschen • buyer broker • Pro Realty, Inc. • 806 8th St Greeley, CO 80631 • (970) 353-1117 David Kiekhaefer el financing prior sale • Date/Doc No: 08/01/2007 • Sale Price: $1 ,359,427 CompiD: 1429546 • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan. LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. 4 11 1 � • • a • S • 4120 Specialty PI UQM Building ' • Longmont, CO 80504 • Class A Manufacturing Building of 129,304 SF Sold on 12/11/2009 for $7,595,000 - Research Complete - buyer ;4 a ,%. - .. • UQM Technologies, Inc. • c/o Donald French 4120 Specialty PI • Longmont, CO 80504 I'll'a. (303) 682-4900 $ ■ 11111- • seller h Holden Graphic Services • 607 Washington Ave N % _% ` I Minnea olis, MN 55401 ' "� a _ P • (612) 339-0241 • vital data I Escrow/Contract: 40 days Sale Price: $7,595,000 . Sale Date: 12/11/2009 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 184 days Building SF: 129,304 SF Ili Exchange: No Price/SF: $58.74 Conditions: Excess Land Pct Office: 19.3% • Land Area SF: 1 ,303,751 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - all Acres: 29.93 Actual Cap Rate: - S/SF Land Gross: $5.83 Down Pmnt: $7,595,000.00 5 Year Built, Age: 2001 Age: 8 Pct Down: 100.0% Parking Spaces: 590 Doc No: 3665000 S Parking Ratio: 4.56/1000 SF Trans Tax: $770.50 ill FAR: 0.10 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: PUD, Weld County • Frontage: - Percent Improved: 64.7% III Tenancy: Single Submarket: Weld County Ind Comp ID: 1838858 Map Page: • Parcel No: 131314005001 Property Type: Industrial S III Income expense data _ listing broker illGrubb & Ellis IIII 1401 Wynkoop St Denver, CO 80202 • (303) 572-7700 Mike Wafer, SIOR, Steve Fletcher, CCIM• buyer broker ill CB Richard Ellis • 8390 E Crescent Pky Greenwood Village, CO 80111 • (720) 528-6300 Murray Platt, SIOR ill financing prior sale Date/Doc No: 05/29/2007 • Sale Price: $7,200,000 ComplD: 1324332 • IIIRscna This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. IP 0 • • • • 9586 E 1-25 Frontage Rd Abound Solar • Longmont, CO 80504 Class B Manufacturing Building of 126,385 SF Sold on . 12/23/2009 for $10,037,500 - Research Complete - 3 • _a buyer • _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 The W.W. Reynolds Companies, Inc. 3boU1 , a • c/o Richard Woodruff , 'I 1800 Broadway II Boulder, CO 80302 r r iiim ollillr r ' ; , (303) 442-8687 e r� r � � eit�ilf�y Rt I I • • I ¶ 111 seller _ First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. t • c/o Gregory Downs 311 S Wacker Dr • Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 344-4300 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 7 days Sale Price: $10,037,500 • Sale Date: 12/23/2009 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 83 days Building SF: 126,385 SF • Exchange: Yes Price/SF: $79.42 Conditions: 1031 Exchange, Investment Triple Net Pct Office: 7.9% • Land Area SF: 333,670 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - all Acres: 7.66 Actual Cap Rate: 8.5% S/SF Land Gross: $30.08 Down Pmnt: $2,007,500.00 • Year Built, Age: 1998 Age: 11 Pct Down: 20.0% Parking Spaces: 253 Doc No: 3666980 Illi Parking Ratio: 2/1000 SF Trans Tax: $1 ,034.75 • FAR: 0.38 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: PUD, Longmont • Frontage: - No Tenants: 3 Tenancy: Single Percent Improved: 87.5% • Comp ID: 1847654 Submarket: Weld County Ind • Map Page: Mapsco 262-KD63 Parcel No: 131314200078 • Property Type: Industrial • income expense data listing broker Income Gross Scheduled Income $848,668 Bitzer Real Estate Partners • + Other Income 1610 Wynkoop St • - Vacancy Allowance Denver, -8O 80202 (303) 296-8500 Effective Gross Income Brady Welsh, Ron Webert, John Bitzer • Net Income Net Operating Income $848,668 - Debt Service i buyer broker 5 - Capital Expenditure No Buyer Broker on Deal • Cash Flow S • financing prior sale • 1st First Ind'I Lp Date/Doc No: 09/01/2009 • Bal/Pmt: $8,030,000 Sale Price: - ComplD: 1812331 • • noThis copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • v: • • • 0 • • • 3331 W 29th St Kendall Printing all Greeley, CO 80631 IP Class B Industrial Building of 33,258 SF Sold on 04/07/2010 - Non-Arms Length - Research Complete ,u- ; r.. . .; buyer .. `' 0 h ,.4 SBC REO LLC r.. r'. 4 s,, . • t �-• • y • 1700 Lincoln St - .. Denver, CO 80203ID 1► (720) 221 -3200 w -i _ -111 seller Ilb Public Trustee Of Weld County II 809 9th St Greeley, CO 80631 • (970) 352-4365 • III vital data IP Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: _ • Sale Date: 04/07/2010 Status: - Days on Market: - Building SF: 33,258 SF 0 Exchange: No Price/SF: - Conditions: - Pct Office: 14.4% • Land Area SF: 261 ,360 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - • Acres: 6 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: - Down Pmnt: - al Year Built, Age: 1992 Age: 18 Pct Down: - Parking Spaces: 58 Doc No: 3696704 • Parking Ratio: 1 .74/1000 SF Trans Tax: • FAR: 0.13 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: C-H • Frontage: - Percent Improved: 47.6% Tenancy: Single Submarket: Weld County Ind II Comp ID: 1931086 Map Page: _ III Parcel No: 095924201040 Property Type: Industrial • II income expense data listing broker • 1111 Ill • buyer broker • SI • financing IP IP • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. 0 Wank) • 0 • • • • 840 Diamond Valley Pky Windsor, CO 80550 • Industrial Building of 62,200 SF Sold on 06/02/2010 - Research • Complete • buyer • Shirazi, Masoud Sedaghat, Inc «, • 1770 25th Ave Greeley, CO 80634 • (970) 356-5151 -- - ` seller • Epicenter Dev Inc • • 1625 Pelican Lakes Pt Windsor, CO 80550 • • vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $6,300,000 Sale Date: 06/02/2010 Status: - Days on Market: - Building SF: 62,200 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $101 .29 Conditions: - Pct Office: 5.0% • Land Area SF: 1 ,960,200 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - • Acres: 45 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: - Down Pmnt: - • Year Built, Age: 2003 Age: 7 Pct Down: - Parking Spaces: - Doc No: 3697109 • Parking Ratio: - Trans Tax: - • FAR: 0.03 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: - iFrontage: - Percent Improved: 82.8% Tenancy: Multi Submarket: Weld County Ind • Comp ID: 1931089 Map Page: - • Parcel No: 080722315001 Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker • • buyer broker • • • financing • • • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • Ryan. • • • • • • 152 30th St Greeley, CO 80631 ID Class B Warehouse Building of 24,141 SF Sold on 01/31/2011 • for $800,000 - Research Complete • et ' 1. : ... II . . buyer i • JBS Swift 8< Company • c/o Aubyn Krulish I I ( f I I I 1770 Promontory Cir ;; • Greeley, CO 80634 , • . P (970) 506-8000 ,,C� _ r, : AP - • _ ill seller • Mark Bradley • c/o Mark Bradley 801 8th St • Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 313-4693 • vital data ID Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $800,000 • Sale Date: 01/31/2011 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 24,141 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $33.14 Conditions: Purchase By Tenant Pro Forma Cap Rate: - III Land Area SF: 113,953 Actual Cap Rate: - 411 Acres: 2.62 Down Pmnt: $800,000.00 $/SF Land Gross: $7.02 Pct Down: 100.0% 1111 Year Built, Age: 1992 Age: 19 Doc No: 3748109 Parking Spaces: 32 Trans Tax: - III Parking Ratio: 1 .29/1000 SF Corner: No • FAR: 0.21 Zoning: I-M, Greeley Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 IP Frontage: - Percent Improved: 88.5% ill Tenancy: Single Submarket: Weld County Ind Comp ID: 2052493 Map Page: Mapsco 99-KR46 • Parcel No: 096120101008 Property Type: Industrial III III income expense data _ - listing broker No Listing Broker on Deal III III buyer broker III No Buyer Broker on Deal ID III 4111 financing prior sale • Date/Doc No: 09/18/2006 • Sale Price: $800,000 ComplD: 1159524 III • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. Si 1'11 • • 411 0 0 0 . 23000 Highway 257 Milliken, CO 80543 I IIII Class B Food Processing Building of 34,654 SF Sold on • • 03/18/2011 for $1,740,000 - Research Complete • buyer 4 Hall-Irwin Corporation • 301 Centennial Dr i4 Milliken, CO 80543 110 (970) 587-7200 Irilr . ill I . seller .�; : - • Colorado Community Bank of Loveland I f • • c/o Bill Bowlds r`: • 1050 Eagle Dr • Loveland, CO 80537 _:.. . . (970) 587-2160 II vital data IPEscrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $1,740,000 • Sale Date: 03/18/2011 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 184 days Building SF: 34,654 SF II Exchange: No Price/SF: $50.21 Conditions: REO Sale Pro Forma Cap Rate: 111 Land Area SF: 1 ,111,216 Actual Cap Rate: • Acres: 25.51 Down Pmnt: - $/SF Land Gross: $1 .57 Pct Down: - ID Year Built, Age: 2000 Age: 11 Doc No: 3756975 Parking Spaces: 18 Trans Tax: - II Parking Ratio: 0.51/1000 SF Corner: No • FAR: 0.03 Zoning: Light Industrial Lot Dimensions: - Percent Improved: 63.9% II Frontage: - Submarket: Weld County Ind el Tenancy: Single Map Page: - Comp ID: 2077911 Parcel No: 105911203008 [Partial List] Ill Property Type: Industrial el • income expense data listing broker • New Horizons and Associates Inc. IP 1015 39th Ave Greeley, CO 80634 IP (970) 351-0922 Darrel Adolf • buyer broker all No Buyer Broker on Deal illi IP • financing 40 Ill IP II This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. Ritan0), III III • • • • 31815 Great Western Dr Windsor, CO 80550 IIII Class A Manufacturing Building of 99,248 SF Sold on 0 03/31/2011 for $9,750,000 ' r buyer • Hexcel Corporation -.Tr' ii I ea. 5 281 Tresser Blvd . �,,. # Stamford, CT 06901 . 1 T. ' ,' 4 1-1 • 1 i fr_ k r . , ,, , . (203) 969-0666 4• 1,r• , • as IIII seller _ �__ ` • The BROE Group 0 252 Clayton St Denver, CO 80206 i. [1tiI \;ti IP (303) 393-0033 • vital data SEscrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $9,750,000 411 Sale Date: 03/31/2011 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 99,248 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $98.24 Conditions: Purchase By Tenant Pro Forma Cap Rate: III Land Area SF: 231 ,892 Actual Cap Rate: IIIAcres: 5.32 Down Pmnt: - $/SF Land Gross: $42.05 Pct Down: - ID Year Built, Age: 2008 Age: 3 Doc No: 3759291 Parking Spaces: 52 Trans Tax: - ID Parking Ratio: 0.52/1000 SF Corner: No 5 FAR: 0.43 Zoning: - Lot Dimensions: - Percent Improved: 96.3% • Frontage: - Submarket: Weld County Ind • Tenancy: Single Map Page: - Comp ID: 2084825 Parcel No: 080726103003 0 Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker • No Listing Broker on Deal • • • buyer broker • No Buyer Broker on Deal • • • financing III • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • an() F. • • 0 Ill • • • 960 Diamond Valley Dr Windsor, CO 80550 • Class B Industrial Building of 37,944 SF Sold on 04/01/2011 for �- • $2,800,000 - Research Complete . 111 buyer • Larry & Donna D Terrell " _ 4111 8685 County Road T Kirk, CO 80824 4111 (970) 362-4220 I _y•4� • seller • Water Valley Land Company • 1625 Pelican Lakes Pt Windsor, CO 80550 • (970) 686-5828 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $2,800,000 • Sale Date: 04/01/2011 Status: Full Value Days on Market: - Building SF: 37,944 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $73.79 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: 4111 Land Area SF: 168,394 Actual Cap Rate: • Acres: 3.87 Down Pmnt: $300,000.00 $/SF Land Gross: $16.63 Pct Down: 10.7% • Year Built, Age: 2005 Age: 6 Doc No: 3760012 4111 Parking Spaces: - Trans Tax: - Parking Ratio: Corner: No • FAR: 0.23 Zoning: - Lot Dimensions: - Percent Improved: 86.3% • Frontage: - Submarket: Weld County Ind • Tenancy: - Map Page: - Comp ID: 2097147 Parcel No: 080722315003 • Property Type: Industrial w • income expense data listing broker • Expenses - Taxes $69,042 Eagle Rock Realty • - Operating Expenses 1625 Pelican Lakes Pt • Total Expenses $69,042 Windsor, CO 80550 (970) 686-5828 Ryan Bach • buyer broker • • • • financing • • 1st Firstbank (Assumed) • Bal/Pmt: $2,500,000 • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • I3fc7fli ), • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NATIONAL MANUFACTURING BUILDING SALES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Vestas Blades and Nacelles — Weld County, Colorado July 13, 2011 • Page 48 • • • • 4601 Gold Spike Dr • Fort Worth, TX 76106 Class B Industrial Building of 558,602 SF Sold on 05/13/2011 ._ . . f BNSf Roil Rood for $10,000,000 - Research Complete Kam o TIL t-5. T: • B Vitt . buyer • . Frac Tech Services Ltd II • c/o Steve Roth 4 Ar9 _ .r IIIIIk 4150 International PIz • Fort Worth, TX 76109 Ilir o" r.$p •o D� ` (817) 850-1008 -` y '�� t-= • - - __ - c 4601 Gold Spike IN .. seller ConAgra Foods Inc. ►" --r Ro•% good • c/o James Doyle un;o„ o°""` b' 1 ConAgra Dr • Omaha, NE 68102 (402) 595-4000 • vital data III Escrow/Contract: 60 days Sale Price: $10,000,000 • Sale Date: 05/13/2011 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 284 days Building SF: 558,602 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $17.90 Conditions: High Vacancy Property, Building in Shell Pro Forma Cap Rate: _ • Condition Actual Cap Rate: - all Land Area SF: 1 ,207,440 Down Pmnt: $10,000,000.00 Acres: 27.72 Pct Down: 100.0% • $/SF Land Gross: $8.28 Doc No: D211113681 Year Built, Age: 2007 Age: 4 Trans Tax: _ IIIParking Spaces: 400 Corner: No • Parking Ratio: 0.8/1000 SF Zoning: - FAR: 0.46 Percent Improved: 82.3% • Lot Dimensions: - Submarket: Meacham Fld/Fossil Cr Ind Frontage: - Map Page: - • Tenancy: Single Parcel No: 41234693 • Comp ID: 2110700 Property Type: Industrial • • III income expense data listing broker CB Richard Ellis • 2100 Ross Ave Dallas, TX 75201 • (214) 979-6100 David Sours, Timothy Vogds 0 buyer broker • No Buyer Broker on Deal • • III financing • • . III This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. III Ryan.), • • • Ill • • • 2222 S Sinclair Ave Kyoho Manufacturing • _ __ , _ Stockton, CA 95215 • Class A Manufacturing Building of 262,000 SF Sold on -- - 02/28/2011 for $12,000,000 - Research Complete • buyer • ECS Refining • 705 Reed St Santa Clara, CA 95050 " '1., e;lEs"21iiitratit J,$ • (408) 988-4386 seller • Kyoho Manufacturing California • 2222 S Sinclair Ave Stockton, CA 95215 • vital data GID Escrow/Contract: 60 days Sale Price: $12,000,000 • Sale Date: 02/28/2011 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 146 days Building SF: 262,000 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $45.80 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: - III Land Area SF: 1 ,612,156 Actual Cap Rate: - • Acres: 37.01 Down Pmnt: $3,600,000.00 $/SF Land Gross: $7.44 Pct Down: 30.0% • Year Built, Age: 2008 Age: 3 Doc No: 024299 III Parking Spaces: 228 Trans Tax: - Parking Ratio: Corner: No • FAR: 0.16 Zoning: IG Lot Dimensions: - Percent Improved: - • Frontage: - Submarket: Stockton Ind • Tenancy: Single Map Page: - Comp ID: 2096842 Parcel No: 173-150-12 • Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker • CB Richard Ellis • 1776 W March Ln Stockton, CA 95207 • (209) 476-2900 Blake Rasmussen, Tyson Vallenari • buyer broker • Kidder Mathews • 3945 Freedom Cir Santa Clara, CA 95054 • (408) 970-9400 Carlos Lorente III financing 1st Bank of America, N.A. • Bal/Pmt: $8,400,000 • • III !Van.) This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • • • • • • • 1305 Airport Industrial Dr --orFormer Rigid Building Systems ,- It r • Gadsden, AL 35904 nr° • • Class B Manufacturing Building of 240,000 SF Sold on a-• 02/28/2011 for $3,300,000 - Research Complete • - - - - - _ -- I. O . buyer The Narmco Group r� 4• • 2575 Airport Rd Windsor, ON •• (519) 969-3351 -. ` r • � y3 � . • r i seller • III mil{ Rigid Building Systems, ltd. • 18933 Aldine Westfield Rd Houston, TX 77073 III (281) 443-9065 il ..- .- ..-.- air • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 60 days Sale Price: $3,300,000 • Sale Date: 02/28/2011 Status: Approximate Days on Market: 335 days Building SF: 240,000 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $13.75 Conditions: - Pct Office: 2.9% • Land Area SF: 1,089,000 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - IDAcres: 25 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: $3.03 Down Pmnt: . III Year Built, Age: 2008 Age: 2 Pct Down: - ID Parking Spaces: 500 Doc No: - Parking Ratio: 2.08/1000 SF Trans Tax: • FAR: 0.22 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: I-1 • Frontage: - Percent Improved: - Tenancy: Single Submarket: Etowah County • Comp ID: 2061114 Map Page: - • Parcel No: - Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker 4111 Graham & Company • 110 Office Park Dr Birmingham, AL 35223 • (205) 871-7100 John Coleman, Sonny Culp • buyer broker • No Buyer Broker on Deal • • • financing 1111 • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • hyan9, • • • • • • • 305 W Crossroads Pky Excel 2 • Bolingbrook, IL 60440 • Class B Manufacturing Building of 371 ,011 SF Sold on 02/10/2011 for $10,320,000 - Research Complete • buyer • G & W Electric Company • 3500 W 127th St Alsip, IL 60803 • (708) 388-5010 -- • seller • Prudential Insurance Group. - • c/o Collate English-Dixon 751 Broad St • Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 802-6000 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 75 days Sale Price: $10,320,000 • Sale Date: 02/10/2011 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 1 ,289 days Building SF: 371 ,011 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $27.82 Conditions: High Vacancy Property Pct Office: 3.0% • Land Area SF: 840,708 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - • Acres: 19.3 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: $12.28 Down Pmnt: $10,320,000.00 • Year Built, Age: 2000 Age: 11 Pct Down: 100.0% • Parking Spaces: 262 Doc No: R11016887 Parking Ratio: 0.82/1000 SF Trans Tax: • FAR: 0.44 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: Industrial • Frontage: - Percent Improved: - Tenancy: Single Submarket: South 1-55 Corridor Ind • Comp ID: 2071848 Map Page: - 11. Parcel No: 02-22-401 -044 Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker • f Paine/Wetzel ONCOR International • 8700 W Bryn Mawr Ave Chicago, IL 60631 • (773) 714-9300 Gerald Sullivan • buyer broker • Paine/Wetzel ONCOR International • 8700 W Bryn Mawr Ave Chicago, IL 60631 • (773) 714-9300 Edward Wabick, Brandon Wright • financing • • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fkalRyan, Inc. - 506596. • f'1/ v • • • III • • • 5880 W State Road 28 Abound Solar 5 Tipton, IN 46072 • Class B Manufacturing Building of 781,500 SF Sold on 12/16/2010 for $25,000,000 - Research Complete 1111 buyer The W.W. Reynolds Companies, Inc. lir • 1800 Broadway wank Boulder, CO 80302 ,r 1 • (303) 442-8687 a " • — __ i 18�. ---_ —_ _ r-- IIIseller -�- ,---- • '41 ,P. Franklin Advisors, LLC • 32300 Northwestern Hwy Farmington, MI 48334 • (248) 538-4024 • vital data ---- ----- --- ------- • Escrow/Contract: 420 days Sale Price: $25,000,000 • Sale Date: 12/16/2010 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 549 days Building SF: 781 ,500 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $31 .99 Conditions: Distress Sale, Building in Shell Pro Forma Cap Rate: - ID Condition Actual Cap Rate: _ • Land Area SF: 4,617,360 Down Pmnt: $9,000,000.00 Acres: 106 Pct Down: 36.0% • $/SF Land Gross: $5.41 Doc No: - Year Built, Age: 2010 Trans Tax: - • Parking Spaces: 810 Corner: No • Parking Ratio: 1 .04/1000 SF Zoning: I-1 , Tipton FAR: 0.17 Percent Improved: - • Lot Dimensions: - Submarket: - Frontage: - Map Page: - ID Tenancy: Single Parcel No: _ • Comp ID: 2018574 Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker ID Cassidy Turley • One American Sq Indianapolis, IN 46282 • (317) 639-0515 Patrick Lindley SIOR, Luke Wessel III buyer broker • No Buyer Broker on Deal • • • financing • 1st Private Bank • Bal/Pmt: $16,000,000 • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596.III Ryan.)• • • • • • • 1150 Commerce Blvd • Kimberly Clark Logan Township, NJ 08085 S • Class A Distribution Building of 599,500 SF Sold on 11/30/2010 for $35,500,000 - Research Complete - • .e buyer "`" ' • -J -- ---- - - ,. . � Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company • 720 E Wisconsin Ave Milwaukee, WI 53202 th-t-i • (414) 665-1800 • seller IAGreat Point Investors LLC V_.- • c/o Steve Bailey 2 Center Plz Boston, MA 02108 • (617) 526-8800 III vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $35,500,000 • Sale Date: 11/30/2010 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 599,500 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $59.22 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: _ el Land Area SF: 2,631 ,024 Actual Cap Rate: 7.4% • Acres: 60.4 Down Pmnt: - $/SF Land Gross: $13.49 Pct Down: - • Year Built, Age: 2009 Age: 1 Doc No: 4829-0107 Parking Spaces: 127 Trans Tax: _ III Parking Ratio: 0.21/1000 SF Corner: No • FAR: 0.23 Zoning: Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 • Frontage: - Percent Improved: - Tenancy: Single Submarket: Gloucester County Ind • Comp ID: 2011694 Map Page: - • Parcel No: 09-02805-0000-00001 Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker III Net Income Net Operating Income $2,623,450 The Flynn Company • - Debt Service 1621 Wood St III - Philadelphia, PA 19103 Capital Expenditure (215) 561 -6565 Cash Flow Joseph Hill, Robert Yoshimura, Brian Fiumara • buyer broker • No Buyer Broker on Deal • • • financing - • • II This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. IIIr1 • • S s • • • 4295 N Cotton Ln Palm Valley 303 • Goodyear, AZ 85338 • Class A Distribution Building of 440,168 SF Sold on 10/01/2010 for $12,525,000 - Research Complete , . • buyer __ .. • --- - - -- -- -- . --- -- - - -- -- -- - tom^ - . Sub-Zero, Inc./Wolf Appliance, Inc. - I 1 , , 5 4717 Hammersley Rd %4 is # ; r - Madison, WI 53711 ._ • (608) 271-2233 • seller • Sunbelt Holdings • 6720 N Scottsdale Rd Scottsdale, AZ 85253 • (480) 905-0770 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 180 days Sale Price: $12,525,000 0 Sale Date: 10/01/2010 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 440,168 SF III Exchange: No Price/SF: $28.46 Conditions: - Pct Office: 6.8% Land Area SF: 1 ,140,270 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - Ill Acres: 26.18 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: $10.98 Down Pmnt: $12,500,000.00 it Year Built, Age: 2008 Age: 2 Pct Down: 99.8% Parking Spaces: 326 Doc No: 0858998 11) Parking Ratio: 0.74/1000 SF Trans Tax: - • FAR: 0.39 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: PAD, Goodyear . Frontage: - Percent Improved: - Tenancy: Single Submarket: Glendale Ind • Comp ID: 1985500 Map Page: Wide World of Maps, Inc. 122-144LR • Parcel No: 501 -02-019 Property Type: Industrial III IIII income expense data listing broker • Estimated Expenses - Taxes $589,684 CB Richard Ellis • - Operating Expenses $52,820 2415 E Camelback Rd Phoenix, AZ 85016 0 Total Expenses $642,505 (602) 735-5555 55 Joe Porter, Patrick Feeney, Daniel Calihan • buyer broker III Cassidy Turley BRE Commercial • 2375 E Camelback Rd Phoenix, AZ 85016 • (602) 954-9000 John Pompay 5 financing prior sale ill Date/Doc No: 07/15/2010 • Sale Price: $56,295,229 ComplD: 1950709 Ill II IllRyan.) This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • • IS • • • • 25850 S Ridgeland Ave Michelin • Monee, IL 60449 • Class A Warehouse Building of 718,728 SF Sold on 04/08/2010 for $19,060,000 - Research Complete • buyer •. __ - . • High Street Equity Advisors _.•. • c/o Andy Zgutowicz 53 State St a .t,i• "- Boston, MA 02109 -• N T • (617) 737-5200 ,t-w;_ "~4,4" GI seller -isimaimase ! _ III Excelsior LaSalle Property Fund Inc. • c/o Nick Firth 255 High Ridge Rd • Stamford, CT 06905 (203) 352-4400 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $19,060,000 • Sale Date: 04/08/2010 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 718,728 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $26.52 Conditions: Investment Triple Net Pro Forma Cap Rate: - ID Land Area SF: 1 ,916,901 Actual Cap Rate: 9.3% • Acres: 44.01 Down Pmnt: $11 ,436,000.00 S/SF Land Gross: $9.94 Pct Down: 60.0% • Year Built, Age: 2004 Age: 5 Doc No: R10042732 Parking Spaces: 188 Trans Tax: $28,950 1111 Parking Ratio: 0.12/1000 SF Corner: No • FAR: 0.37 Zoning: Industrial Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 • Frontage: - Percent Improved: 91.4% • Tenancy: Single Submarket: Central Will Ind Comp ID: 1925125 Map Page: • Parcel No: 14-19-201 -003 [Partial List] Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker III Income Gross Scheduled Income $1,764,956 CB Richard Ellis • + Other Income 700 Commerce Dr - Vacancy Allowance Oak Brook, IL 60523 (630) 573-7000 Effective Gross Income Ted Staszak, Michael Caprile • Net Income Net Operating Income $1 ,764,956 - Debt Service buyer broker • - Capital Expenditure No Buyer Broker on Deal • Cash Flow • • financing prior sale • 1st Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (due in 5 yrs) Date/Doc No: 01/01/2004 • Bal/Pmt: $21 ,624,000 Sale Price: $25,200,000 CompiD: 1864250 • Ill • an1 This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC flca/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • • • ill • • 1615 Garden of the Gods Rd (6 properties) Colorado Springs, CO 80907 • Multi-Property sale of 6 properties for $15,100,000 O414:7"_. - -• III buyer r r - - • • . Industrial Realty Group • c/o Mike Kazmierski r • '' 12214 Lakewood Blvd • Downey, CA 90242 (562) 803-4761 III _�sini f Y seller • Intel Corporation • c/o Janet Rash 2200 Mission College Blvd • Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 765-8080 • vital data • Name: Intel Garden of the Gods Campus # of Properties: 6 • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $15,100,000 Sale Date: 11/13/2009 Status: Full Value • Days on Market: - Building SF: 1 ,618,109 SF Exchange: No Price/SF: $9.33 0 Conditions: Distress Sale, High Vacancy Property, Pro Forma Cap Rate: - Redevelopment Project Actual Cap Rate: - Land Area SF: 10,501 ,009 Down Pmnt: $12,750,000.00 • Acres: 241 .07 Pct Down: 84.4% $/SF Land Gross: $1 .44 Doc No: 0131424 • Comp ID: 1824569 Trans Tax: $1,510 • Map Page: - Parcel No: 73261-01 -102 • Property Type: Multiple Types • • • ID income expense data listing broker Estimated Expenses - Taxes $946,576 Grubb & EllislQuantum Commercial Group • - Operating Expenses $5,095,097 101 N Cascade Total Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Expenses $6,041 ,673 (719) 590-1717 Michael Palmer II buyer broker • Grubb & EllisiQuantum Commercial Group • 101 N Cascade Colorado Springs, CO 80903 • (719) 590-1717 Michael Palmer IP financing 1st Seller • Bal/Pmt: $2,350,000 IP This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan. LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • an .. • • - 2950 E Philadelphia St Myers Power Products • Ontario, CA 91761 • Class B Warehouse Building of 221 ,921 SF Sold on 07/09/2009 for $14,646,786 - Research Complete A • • buyer r • IIMAIlt— Myers Power Products illc/o Diana Groontonk l 725 E Harrison St FIII S • Corona, CA 92879 (951) 520-1900 Ill seller - --- - --- • TA Associates Realty 4111 c/o James Raisides 28 State St III Boston, MA 02109 (617) 476-2700 ill vital data • Escrow/Contract: 60 days Sale Price: $14,646,786 ill Sale Date: 07/09/2009 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 111 days Building SF: 221 ,921 SF 5 Exchange: No Price/SF: $66.00 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: - . Land Area SF: 522,720 Actual Cap Rate: - . Acres: 12 Down Pmnt: $2,996,786.00 $/SF Land Gross: $28.02 Pct Down: 20.5% . Year Built, Age: 2001 Age: 7 Doc No: 299654 • Parking Spaces: 225 Trans Tax: - Parking Ratio: 1 .05/1000 SF Corner: No el FAR: 0.42 Zoning: SP Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 . Frontage: - Percent Improved: 75.8% Tenancy: Multi Submarket: Airport Area • Comp ID: 1734868 Map Page: Thomas Bros. Guide 643-A4 • Parcel No: 0218-051 -97 Property Type: Industrial . IP income expense data listing broker II DAUM Commercial Real Estate Services IIII 4120 E Concours Ontario, CA 91764 MI (909) 980-1234 Mark Zorn, Tal Siglar • buyer broker • DAUM Commercial Real Estate Services 4400 MacArthur Blvd • Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 724-1900 • Chris Migliori • financing prior sale 0 1st Bank Of America Date/Doc No: 06/15/2006 (407527) III Bal/Pmt: $11 ,650,000 Sale Price: $17,310,000 ComplD: 1129910 IIIII IP IIIRYan 0, This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • • • • • • 129 N Commerce Dr _ -_ := i_,. Lyons, GA 30436 : . • . Class A Manufacturing Building of 220,000 SF Sold on • 05/11/2009 for $3,250,000 - Research Complete - " 1 buyer Ili ] "' Tri Union Foods �" •� a, dli I rk - fin seller IIIII Fortune Brands • • • vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $3,250,000 • Sale Date: 05/11/2009 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 542 days Building SF: 220,000 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $14.77 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: IIII Land Area SF: 740,520 Actual Cap Rate: • Acres: 17 Down Pmnt: - $/SF Land Gross: $4.39 Pct Down: _ Ill Year Built, Age: 2004 Age: 5 Doc No: - Parking Spaces: - Trans Tax: _ III Parking Ratio: - Corner: No • FAR: 0.30 Zoning: Industrial Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 • Frontage: - Percent Improved: - Tenancy: Single Submarket: _ 1111 Comp ID: 1700378 Map Page: - el Parcel No: C38-019C Property Type: Industrial • • income expense data i listing broker • I CB Richard Ellis • 3280 Peachtree Rd Atlanta, GA 30305 • (404) 504-7900 Brent Weitnauer, Stuart Pendley • buyer broker 41. CB Richard Ellis • 3280 Peachtree Rd Atlanta, GA 30305 III (404) 504-7900 Brent Weitnauer, Stuart Pendley • financing • • • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan. Inc. - 506596. • Wink • • • • • • • 7800 International Dr Wausau, WI 54401 • Class A Manufacturing Building of 400,000 SF Sold on • 09/10/2008 for $18,352,200 - Research Complete III it ._ i: buyer y IIIII __ sr • Apogee Enterprises, Inc. • III �.'., c/o David Blank I . ,l '' - 4400W78thSt � — SIM _ di Minneapolis, MN 55435 ■■ n ,, (952) 835-1874ID . r t ' 1Ella - seller �� -r _- 1 .1- . ,,•4w. si I III Scannell Properties 92 LLC u L■�� c/o Kevin See �— • 800 E 96th St • Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 843-5959 • vital data - - - - - -- • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $18,352,200 • Sale Date: 09/10/2008 Status: Full Value Days on Market: - Building SF: 400,000 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $45.88 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: - IIII Land Area SF: 1 ,633,064 Actual Cap Rate: - allAcres: 37.49 Down Pmnt: - $/SF Land Gross: $11 .24 Pct Down: _ I• Year Built, Age: 2008 Doc No: 000001520079 • Parking Spaces: - Trans Tax: - Parking Ratio: Corner: No III FAR: 0.24 Zoning: - Lot Dimensions: - Percent Improved: _ III Frontage: - Submarket: - Tenancy: Single Map Page: _ ill Comp ID: 1609333 Parcel No: 291 -2906-251 -0990 IPProperty Type: Industrial • • income expense data listing broker i • • ID buyer broker • • • IIPfinancing ' ID • III • Wank), This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • • 1111 • • • • 4053 Clough Woods Dr Multi-Color Corp. Building li Cincinnati, OH 45245 • Class B Manufacturing Building of 247,830 SF Sold on 10/18/2007 for $6,100,000 - Research Complete III h buyer Multi Color Corporation � .,_ . 1110 4053 Clough Woods Dr Cincinnati, OH 45245 I • (513) 381-1480 - rer- Altar • - III seller • 3M Company III 3997 McMann Rd Cincinnati, OH 45245 • (513) 752-7000 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: 100 days Sale Price: $6,100,000 • Sale Date: 10/18/2007 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: 97 days Building SF: 247,830 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $24.61 Conditions: Excess Land Pct Office: 13.6% • Land Area SF: 1 ,916,640 Pro Forma Cap Rate: - • Acres: 44 Actual Cap Rate: - $/SF Land Gross: $3.18 Down Pmnt: $6,100,000.00 • Year Built, Age: 2001 Age: 6 Pct Down: 100.0% Parking Spaces: 230 Doc No: 2095-0392 • Parking Ratio: 0.93/1000 SF Trans Tax: $24,400 • FAR: 0.13 Corner: No Lot Dimensions: - Zoning: M1 • Frontage: - No Tenants: 1 Tenancy: Single Percent Improved: _ 1111 Comp ID: 1438741 Submarket: Rt 50/32 Corridor Ind • Map Page: - Parcel No: 41-31 -12C-258. [Partial List] • Property Type: Industrial • income expense data listing broker • CB Richard Ellis • 201 E Fifth St Cincinnati, OH 45202 • (513) 369-1300 Roderick MacEachen, Joshua Niederhelman IIII buyer broker • CB Richard Ellis IP 201 E Fifth St Cincinnati, OH 45202 • (513) 369-1300 Roderick MacEachen, Joshua Niederhelman 1111 financing • • • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC flca/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. � and , • • III IP • I - 0 2950 E Philadelphia St Myers Power Products Ontario, CA 91761 i _ ID Class B Warehouse Building of 221 ,921 SF Sold on 06/15/2006 - for $17,310,000 - Research Complete buyer Realty Associates Fund VIII LP - 1111 c/o Scott Amling 1301 Dove StJ • Newport Beach, CA 92660 �„ :� (949) 852-2030 - • seller - - ---- ---- - --- i ' _ ' III Wellzong International Ltd c/o Thomas Tsai • 18560 San Jose Ave • II City of Industry, CA 91748 (626) 839-5555 lb vital data III Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $17,310,000 • Sale Date: 06/15/2006 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 221 ,921 SF w Exchange: No Price/SF: $78.00 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: - IIIII Land Area SF: 522,720 Actual Cap Rate: - 0 Acres: 12 Down Pmnt: - $/SF Land Gross: $33.12 Pct Down: - ID Year Built, Age: 2001 Age: 4 Doc No: 407527 Parking Spaces: 225 Trans Tax: - 111 Parking Ratio: 1 .05/1000 SF Corner: No 40 FAR: 0.42 Zoning: SP Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 III Frontage: - Percent Improved: 78.0% Tenancy: Multi Submarket: Airport Area 1111 Comp ID: 1129910 Map Page: Thomas Bros. Guide 643-A4 0 Parcel No: 0218-051 -97 Property Type: Industrial ID IP income expense data listing broker No Listing Broker on Deal 1111 IP buyer broker 6 • 1111 IP financing prior sale III 1st Lender Not available Date/Doc No: 06/15/2001 • Sale Price: - ComplD: 576019 i 110 This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. IIII !Van*" • • • 0 8755 S Rita Rd Arizona Canning Company Tucson, AZ 85747 • Class B Food Processing Building of 440,000 SF Sold on 06/07/2006 for $27,500,000 - Research Complete buyer IIArizona Canning Company, LLC - • do Alfonso Villalva Peniche (Mgr) -! 8755 S Rita Rd r Li : ' ... - • Tucson, AZ 85747 .. s. _ „ _ . . • seller • Conopco, Inc. • c/o Philip Cohen (VP) 700 Sylvan Ave III Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 (201) 894.4000 • vital data • Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $27,500,000 • Sale Date: 06/07/2006 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 440,000 SF . Exchange: No Price/SF: $62.50 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: _ • Land Area SF: 3,702,600 Actual Cap Rate: _ • Acres: 85 Down Pmnt: $27,500,000.00 $/SF Land Gross: $7.43 Pct Down: 100.0% • Year Built, Age: 2002 Age: 4 Doc No: 12820-4397 Parking Spaces: 200 Trans Tax: - IIIParking Ratio: Corner: No • FAR: 0.12 Zoning: 1-2, Tucson Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 • Frontage: 1 ,678 feet on Rita Percent Improved: 91 .2% II Tenancy: Single Submarket: Southeast Tucson Ind Comp ID: 1124691 Map Page: Wide World of Maps, Inc. 137-238QS • Parcel No: 141 -22-004L Property Type: Industrial • • listing broker 1111 income expense data PICOR Commercial Real Estate Services • 1100 N Wilmot Tucson, AZ 85712 • (520) 748-7100 Russ Hall 0 buyer broker IPPICOR Commercial Real Estate Services ID 1100 N Wilmot Tucson, AZ 85712 • (520) 748-7100 Russ Hall el financing prior sale • Date/Doc No: 07/26/2002 • Sale Price: $52,000,000 ComplD: 684650 • IIII This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. Ill Ryan.) • 0 . • 411 • 23400 Smith Rd General Motors el Aurora, CO 80019 • Warehouse Building of 404,000 SF Sold on 03/31/2006 for $9,491,500 - Research Complete • buyer p. Prudential Real Estate Investors • 1 • c/o Prudential Investment Mgmt, Inc. r 751 Broad St _ _ • Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 734-1300 .•.1-ea - I I I 5 NI e a 1.itir "''r, y' ! III seller ' - Ill ProLogis r - • c/o John Bezzant, VP 4545 Airport Way Denver, CO 80239 • (303) 567-5000 II vital data III Escrow/Contract: - Sale Price: $9,491 ,500 • Sale Date: 03/31/2006 Status: Confirmed Days on Market: - Building SF: 404,000 SF • Exchange: No Price/SF: $23.49 Conditions: - Pro Forma Cap Rate: - . Land Area SF: 1 ,089,000 Actual Cap Rate: _ III Acres: 25 Down Pmnt: $/SF Land Gross: $8.72 Pct Down: . Year Built, Age: 2003 Age: 2 Doc No: 0326390 Parking Spaces: - Trans Tax: $949.15 . Parking Ratio: - Corner: No • FAR: 0.37 Zoning: LI, Aurora Lot Dimensions: - No Tenants: 1 . Frontage: - Percent Improved: 82.3% Tenancy: Single Submarket: SW DIA/Pena Blvd Ind • Comp ID: 1114007 Map Page: • Parcel No: 1819-31 -3-01-001 Property Type: Industrial . III income expense data listing broker No Listing Broker on Deal . • I buyer broker IIINo Buyer Broker on Deal . . III financing prior sale w 1st Lender Not available Date/Doc No: 01/01/2003 • Sale Price: - ComplD: 824417 • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. 4111 n 0,) Ill • • • 6401 W Fort St ArvinMeritor Automotive Facility Detroit, MI 48209 Class B Manufacturing Building of 262,000 SF For Sale at $7,598,000 • buyer • For Sale • • fly U " ,� . seller - • • • vital data • Days on Market: 581 days Asking Price: $7,598,000 • Conditions: - Status: For Sale Land Area SF: 810,216 SF Building SF: 262,000 SF • Acres: 18.60 AC Price/SF: $29.00 $/SF Land Gross: - Cap Rate: - Year Built, Age: 2001 Age: 10 Corner: Yes • Parking Spaces: 475 Zoning: M4 Parking Ratio: - Submarket: Detroit West Ind 5 FAR: 0.32 Map Page: - Lot Dimensions: - Parcel No: 18-000387 Frontage: Property Type: Industrial • • • • • • • income expense data listing broker CB Richard Ellis • 2000 Town Center Southfield, MI 48075 • (248) 353-5400 Matthew J. Osiecki, Daniel McCleary, Mark P. Collins • buyer broker • • • • • • • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • I ,c7flk • • • • • • 4401 Bowling St SW Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 • Wind Turbine Mfg. building of 356,000 SF For Sale at $16,295,000 • • - - - ' H _ buyer ' d( tf . . . • - - --- --- ---- — r�•• For Sale ill., 75, • i - 3= . , seller - J_ ack Pine Land , LLC4 �� — . ' .. .. - _•• • vital data _ • Days on Market: 23 days Asking Price: $16,295,000 • Conditions: Investment Triple Net Status: For Sale as Investment Property Land Area SF: 1 ,285,456 SF Building SF: 356,000 SF • Acres: 29.51 AC Price/SF: $45.77 $/SF Land Gross: - Cap Rate: - III Year Built, Age: 1970, 2006 renovated Corner: Yes • Parking Spaces: 88 Zoning: 1-2 Parking Ratio: 0.85/1000 SF Submarket: _ III FAR: 0.28 Map Page: - Lot Dimensions: - Parcel No: - 411 Frontage: Property Type: Industrial • • • Clipper Windpower Facility, Leased through 05/2015 with 5-year lease renewal option • • • income expense data listing broker • Skogman Commercial Group • 411 First Ave SE Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 • (319) 247-5000 Scott E. Olson 1111 buyer broker • - • • • • • • • This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Ryan, LLC fka/Ryan, Inc. - 506596. • RYan ,)., • • • Is. liver 9Sr • cep. 9Sr • Gip too v v O N ¢ N o III o 4N u� - CSII. m v) al * COM OOJ(D oo W oo .- O a.�QNM= gyp) 'coin--tom o To 10 jQ.(n00 EO5U co • - _ ¢ zTTo I a n o 7 {a N v � ` o ., , o t ory t Q ® a. � o X1,1 N l 4 gal bi-,7 vi11N0 0 0 o f Cs9) II sesames IF z iis. ` c. `f \ \ I .., to I mull rep <• lv V • I 0114 cook 0 L IN Ln 0Q` CC v o0 � t.,*) C VI O -P-4- 0 V Q N C CC Z 7,-, O N ill CO O� _N tri C0 Uill' I vi 00 eft o 4N 03 .1% re +; Ir) O 5 win IN., LC CI = isi.) -0 r .c) m CD d ..sue LatLno Stn0 2 ni1�i1 . r3 o j Q. V 4',� 4-4 P N k O O cy,_,, sal a tall. Lit Lisol °,dam O. if -a ;.m tr. -1LA, 11"i ..�, 8002 Aenue(` 'LO I. lage ct SIhiloo ^ = LIU Jv � to woo•sdsn je sn ;�s�n • it 3DIA2/3S7V1SOd S31v1S031/Nn .may 7/r/I41 F 1 ®ALI≥IOI≥id ar ss a.), • A. Qy \ ' ^� • 1sd a �d^' � 4sy� 4.9. .1.6%, �d�� 1S , 07/22/2011 07:40 FAX BRATTON.S U001 *******************sac *** TX REPORT *** ********************* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 0791 RECIPIENT ADDRESS 916029554892 DESTINATION ID ST. TIME 07/22 07:37 TIME USE 02'17 PAGES SENT 7 RESULT OK MI647 WI" C FAX TRANSMISSION COLORADO Weld County Clerk to the Board PO Box 758 Greeley,CO 80632 Fax: 970-352-0242 Phone: 970-336-7215,ext.4226 To: Jessica Riggen, Ryan Date: July 22,2011 Fax: 1-602-955-4892 Pages: 7+Cover From: Esther Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board Subject: Vestas Notice Letters COMMENTS: 6 CLERK TO THE BOARD !' PHONE (970) 336-7215 EXT 4226 I�' FAX: (970) 352-0242 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us 'B 915 10TH STREET P.O. BOX 758 WI C. GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 COLORADO July 21, 2011 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC 11140 EASTMAN PARK DRIVE WINDSOR, CO 80550 Parcel No.: 147129301002 Account No.: R6778002 Dear Petitioner(s): The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of July 27, 2011, at or about the hour of 4:30 PM, to hold a hearing on your valuation for assessment. This hearing will be held at the Weld County Centennial Center, First Floor Hearing Room, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. You have a right to attend this hearing and present evidence in support of your petition. The Weld County Assessor or his designee will be present. The Board will make its decision on the basis of the record made at the aforementioned hearing, as well as your petition, so it would be in your interest to have a representative present. If you plan to be represented by an agent or an attorney at your hearing, prior to the hearing you shall provide, in writing to the Clerk to the Board's Office, an authorization for the agent or attorney to represent you. If you do not choose to attend this hearing, a decision will still be made by the Board by the close of business on August 5, 2011, and mailed to you on or before August 12, 2011. Because of the volume of cases before the Board of Equalization, most cases shall be limited to 10 minutes. Also due to volume, cases cannot be rescheduled. It is imperative that you provide evidence to support your position. This may include evidence that similar homes in your area are valued less than yours or you are being assessed on improvements you do not have. Please note: The fact that your valuation has increased cannot be your sole basis of appeal. Without documented evidence as indicated above, the Board will have no choice but to deny your appeal. If you wish to obtain the data supporting the Assessor's valuation of your property, please submit a written request directly to the Assessor's Office by fax (970) 304-6433, or if you have questions, call (970) 353-3845. Upon receipt of your written request, the Assessor will notify you of the estimated cost of providing such information. Payment must be made prior to the Assessor providing such information, at which time the Assessor will make the data available within three (3) working days, subject to any confidentiality requirements. 2011-1778 AS0079 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC - R6778002 Page 2 Please advise me if you decide not to keep your appointment as scheduled. If you need any additional information, please call me at your convenience. Very truly yours, BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor RYAN LLC STE 650 16220 N SCOTTSDALE RD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 2011-1778 AS0079 BOE SUMMARY SHEET Account Number: R6778002 Parcel Number: 147129301002 VESTAS BLADES AMERICA INC 11140 EASTMAN PARK DRIVE WINDSOR, CO 80550 HEARING DATE: 7/27/2011, AT 4:30:00 PM HEARING ATTENDED? (Y/N) NAME: AGENT NAME: RYAN LLC STE 650 16220 N SCOTTSDALE RD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 APPRAISER NAME: WJM DECISION ACTUAL VALUATION APPROVE BY SET BY ASSESSOR BOARD TOTAL ACTUAL VALUE 64,858,615 (Ai g5Si (p/5 COMMENTS: MOTION BY TO SECONDED BY Kirkmeyer-- (Y/N) Conway -- (Y/N) Failed to prove appropriate value Garcia -- (Y/N) No comparables given Long -- (Y/N) Assessor's value upheld Rademacher-- (Y/N) Other: RESOLUTION NO. 2011-1778 M:\BOE\SUMMARY.dobc Hello